PER CURIAM. At issue is whether plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the notice and verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 of the Court

of Claims Act (the COCA). 1 We hold that they must. In concluding to the contrary, the Court of Appeals erred by applying this Court’s decision in Progress Mich v Attorney

1 MCL 600.6401 et seq.

General 2 to reason that plaintiff could “correct any defect in its complaint in order to comply with [the requirements of MCL 600.6431 and MCL 600.6434] during the pendency of the proceedings and in accordance with the court rules” even after the one-year period set forth in MCL 600.6431 had expired. 3 Progress Mich pertained to a distinct statute-of- limitations issue and did not purport to detract from our jurisprudence requiring complete compliance with MCL 600.6431 to avoid dismissal of claims against the state.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Court of Claims for reinstatement of summary disposition in favor of defendant. We deny plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2013, plaintiff, Elia Companies, LLC, entered into a 10-year lease with

defendant, the University of Michigan Regents, to obtain space at the Michigan Union, where it would establish a coffee shop. In March 2017, defendant disclosed its plans to renovate the Union. According to plaintiff’s complaint, the parties’ lease required that they negotiate a relocation of the leased premises. Plaintiff asserts that, rather than enter into good-faith negotiations, defendant sent it a long list of relatively old grievances on

April 17, 2018, and terminated the lease on April 20, 2018, based on plaintiff’s alleged default. Defendant ordered plaintiff to vacate the premises, and plaintiff was barred from entering the building.

In August 2018, plaintiff filed an action in the Washtenaw Circuit Court, alleging

breach of contract, violations of Michigan’s anti-lockout statute, 4 breach of covenant for quiet possession, constructive eviction, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Defendant, over plaintiff’s objection, filed a notice of transfer removing the case to the Court of Claims pursuant to MCL 600.6404(3) and MCL 600.6419(1) of the COCA. Defendant ultimately

moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing, in pertinent part, that plaintiff’s entire action must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to

comply with the notice and verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 5 of the COCA. The Court of Claims agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s case pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).6

Plaintiff appealed as of right, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part in a published opinion. The panel affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s ancillary claims on governmental-tort-immunity grounds but reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s contract claim. In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s decision in Progress

Mich to hold that plaintiff could verify its complaint as required by MCL 600.6431(1) by filing an amended, verified complaint in the ordinary course of the proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the one-year period for filing a verified notice or claim set

forth in that statute had lapsed. ^[7] Defendant sought leave to appeal the reinstatement of plaintiff’s contract claim in this Court. 8

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. 9

Issues of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. 10

III. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, we reject plaintiff’s argument that it was not required to comply with the notice and verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 because plaintiff initially

filed suit in the circuit court rather than in the Court of Claims. As this Court held in Christie v Wayne State Univ, 11 all parties with claims against the state, except those exempted in MCL 600.6431 itself, must comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431.

This includes claims initiated in the circuit court. Plaintiff did not timely comply with this provision, as it failed to file, in the office of the clerk of the Court of Claims, “a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim” within one year after its claims accrued. ^[12]

The Court of Appeals excused plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with MCL

600.6431, citing Progress Mich to conclude that plaintiff could “correct any defect in its complaint in order to comply with [the requirements of MCL 600.6431 and MCL

600.6434] during the pendency of the proceedings and in accordance with the court rules”

even after the one-year period set forth in MCL 600.6431 had expired. 13 This was in error and contrary to our jurisprudence. As we explained in Christie, this Court has stated that adherence to the conditions set forth in MCL 600.6431 is necessary “to successfully expose the defendant state agencies to liability.” 14 In the context of the GTLA, this Court in Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm held that the 120-day notice provision in MCL

691.1404 of the GTLA “was constitutional,” that “no ‘saving construction’ was necessary or allowed,” and that “the engrafting of [a] prejudice requirement onto the statute was

entirely indefensible.” 15 Five years later, this Court held in McCahan v Brennan that the reasoning of Rowland equally applied to the notice provision in MCL 600.6431 of the COCA, holding that “statutory notice requirements must be interpreted and enforced as plainly written and . . . no judicially created saving construction is permitted to avoid a clear statutory mandate.” 16 Ultimately, the Court concluded that the “[f]iling [of a] notice

outside the statutorily required notice period does not constitute compliance with the statute.” 17 In 2015, in Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, this Court explained that, by enacting

MCL 600.6431, “the Legislature has qualified a claimant’s ability to bring a claim against the state by requiring that ‘the claim or notice shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.’ ” 18 In holding that the plaintiffs’ claims had to be dismissed, the Court ruled that, when a “notice [is] either unverified but timely or untimely but verified, . . . it fails to meet the conditions precedent to maintaining a suit against the [state].” 19 Accordingly, under our well-established jurisprudence, a party bringing suit against the state must fully comply with the terms of MCL 600.6431, regardless of a finding of prejudice. Under this caselaw, plaintiff’s failure to comply with

MCL 600.6431 mandates the dismissal of its claims. This should have been the end of the Court of Appeals’ inquiry.

Instead, the Court of Appeals applied this Court’s decision in Progress Mich to conclude that plaintiff’s claims need not be dismissed despite plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with MCL 600.6431. But Progress Mich did not purport to detract from our jurisprudence requiring complete compliance with MCL 600.6431 to maintain a claim

against the state. In Progress Mich, the plaintiff’s original complaint filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 20 failed to comply with the verification requirement of MCL 600.6434. 21 Unlike in this case, the plaintiff in Progress Mich subsequently filed an amended and verified complaint well before the expiration of the one-year period set forth in MCL 600.6431. Thus, the Progress Mich Court was not tasked with considering

whether a party can cure a defective complaint after that one-year deadline has lapsed. The distinct issue presented was whether the initial filing of the unverified complaint tolled the applicable statute of limitations to prevent dismissal of the case on statute-of-limitations grounds. This Court held that an unverified complaint can toll the 180-day FOIA limitations period, as “nothing in the language of [FOIA] suggests that the verification requirement of MCL 600.6434 (or MCL 600.6431) has any bearing on the question of when

20 MCL 15.231 et seq. 21 MCL 600.6434(2) of the COCA provides that a party’s complaint “shall be verified,” and MCL 600.6434(3) and (4) provide instruction as to how the complaint shall be served and filed. The Court in Progress Mich stated that the “[d]efendant did not address verification under MCL 600.6434 separately from verification under MCL 600.6431, and while the statutes function slightly differently, there is no difference between their verification requirements.” Progress Mich, 506 Mich at 93.

an action is commenced or whether the statutory period of limitations is tolled.”22 The Court did not alter its previous holdings that compliance with MCL 600.6431 is required to avoid

dismissal of claims against the state. The Court of Appeals thus misapplied the rationale of Progress Mich to excuse plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431.

IV. CONCLUSION

We conclude that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice and verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 mandates dismissal of this case. Accordingly, we reverse

the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Court of Claims for reinstatement of summary disposition in favor of defendant. We deny plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant. 23

Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch

BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case due to a familial relationship.

BOLDEN, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case because the Court considered it before she assumed office.

22 Progress Mich, 506 Mich at 98. 23 In light of our conclusion that plaintiff’s claims fail due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431, we need not consider the issues set forth in plaintiff’s cross-appeal.