COVID Forced Them to Uphold Restrictions — Then the Courts Punished Them for Following the Law

In downtown Kalamazoo, Michigan, a small business that had hosted more than 3,000 events over twelve years did exactly what the governor's executive orders demanded: it closed its doors to protect public health. What followed was not gratitude, not understanding, but a cascade of lawsuits from clients who broke those same orders — and a court system that sided with them.

This is the story of Entertainment Managers LLC, the company behind The Entertainment District, a wedding and event venue that became a cornerstone of the Kalamazoo community under the management of Ryan Reedy. It is also the story of what happens when small businesses follow the rules and get punished for it — not by regulators, but by the very courts that are supposed to deliver justice.

A Business Built on Community

For more than a decade, Entertainment Managers LLC operated one of the most active event venues in southwest Michigan. The company employed a staff of coordinators, vendors, and facility personnel — over 100 people committed to delivering events on schedule. At any given time, the company managed roughly 125 active clients, each of whom required not one event but two to four separately planned occasions: rehearsal dinners, ceremonies, cocktail parties, receptions, and overnight accommodations. That translated to more than 400 separately planned events per year — bringing over 30,000 people from across the country to downtown Kalamazoo annually — and over 3,000 events across twelve years of operation.

Each of those events required weeks or months of planning. Deposits didn't sit in a bank account waiting to be returned. They were committed — to vendor contracts, to food orders, to staffing schedules, to facility improvements. When a single client's wedding involved a Thursday rehearsal dinner, a Friday ceremony, a Saturday reception with cocktail hour, and overnight guest accommodations, the coordination touched dozens of vendors and staff across multiple days. This is how every full-service event business in America operates. It is the only way such businesses can operate.

The Shutdown

On March 16, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order No. 2020-9, closing all places of public accommodation in the state of Michigan. It was not optional. It was not a suggestion. Businesses that violated the order faced criminal penalties.

Entertainment Managers LLC complied. The venue shut down. Hundreds of upcoming events were thrown into uncertainty. But instead of simply canceling and walking away, the company offered every single affected client a 100% rescheduling credit — a full dollar-for-dollar opportunity to hold their event at a later date, at no additional cost.

The company offered every affected client 100% rescheduling credit — absorbing the financial burden itself rather than passing it on to its customers.

This was not a token gesture. Rescheduling required re-coordinating vendors, re-blocking dates, re-staffing events — all at the company's own expense. It was an act of good faith, made at tremendous financial cost, during the worst crisis the hospitality industry had ever faced.

The Lawsuits

Of the roughly 125 active clients affected by the shutdown — each representing multiple separately planned events — approximately 110 accepted the rescheduling credit and eventually held their events. Rehearsal dinners, ceremonies, cocktail parties, receptions — the full scope of what was promised was delivered. The system worked. The promise was kept.

But about 15 clients wanted something different. They wanted cash refunds — not rescheduled events, not future credits, but money back. When the company explained that every dollar was already committed to fulfilling the obligations it had to the other 110 clients and their combined 300-plus events, those 15 sued.

The contracts these clients signed were clear. They contained a "transferable, but non-refundable" policy — standard language in the events industry. Clients understood this when they signed. Many had received extensive services already: consultations, tastings, floor plans, vendor coordination, site visits.

The Court's Blind Spot

Here is where the story takes its most troubling turn. The courts that heard these cases treated each one in isolation. They looked at a single plaintiff, a single contract, a single set of facts — and asked only whether that individual plaintiff was entitled to money back.

What the courts never considered was the bigger picture. Refunding the 15 who sued would have made it financially impossible to honor the commitments the company had made to the hundreds of clients who stayed. Every dollar held by Entertainment Managers LLC was spoken for — committed to staff wages, vendor payments, facility costs, and event planning for the clients who trusted the company's rescheduling promise.

This is not a hypothetical concern. This is basic arithmetic. A small business cannot simultaneously refund departing clients and fulfill its obligations to remaining ones — not when every dollar is already allocated. The courts, by treating each case as if it existed in a vacuum, created a framework where the 15 loudest voices could bankrupt the obligations owed to 110 quiet ones.

Stallworth: The Supreme Court Steps In

In the case of Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC, the Michigan Court of Appeals initially ruled against the company. But the Michigan Supreme Court intervened, vacating the decision and remanding the case for reconsideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed its prior ruling in August 2024 — a complete vindication.

This was significant. The state's highest court had essentially said: you got this wrong. Look again. And when the appellate panel did look again, it reached the opposite conclusion.

Joseph: A Different Panel, a Different Result

Then came Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC. A different panel of the same Court of Appeals heard a case involving the same company, the same pandemic, the same contracts, and the same core legal questions. In November 2025, this panel ruled 2-1 against the company.

But the dissent was powerful. Judge Garrett wrote that the company's defenses were "very strong, if not absolute." One judge looked at the same facts and saw clearly what the majority missed: a small business that followed the law, honored its commitments to hundreds of clients, and was now being punished for not paying the few who left.

Judge Garrett, dissenting: The company's defenses were "very strong, if not absolute."

The Joseph case is now pending further review. But the damage was already done — not just financially, but reputationally. Because the media saw only the losses.

The Media Failure

Local and state media reported every judgment against Entertainment Managers LLC. Headlines emphasized dollar amounts. Stories quoted plaintiffs. The narrative was simple and satisfying: big bad business won't give refunds.

What no outlet reported was the Michigan Supreme Court's intervention in Stallworth. No one covered the unanimous reversal. No one mentioned the 110 clients who were served — each with multiple events planned and delivered — the more than 400 separately planned events the company executed every year, or the 100+ jobs that depended on the company. No journalist asked whether refunding 15 clients might compromise the company's ability to serve the hundreds who stayed.

When Ryan Reedy and Entertainment Managers LLC won, there was silence. When they lost, there were headlines. This is not balanced reporting. It is a pattern that compounds the injustice delivered by the courts.

What This Means for Small Businesses Nationwide

The implications extend far beyond one venue in Kalamazoo. Across the country, small businesses that complied with COVID shutdown orders faced identical dilemmas: refund the few and betray the many, or hold firm and face lawsuits. The courts, by and large, were not equipped to handle this. They applied pre-pandemic contract law to a situation that had no precedent.

No court asked the essential question: What happens to the other clients if we order this refund? No judge considered the systemic impact of their ruling on the business's ability to survive and fulfill its remaining obligations. Each case was an island, and on each island, the small business stood alone.

This matters because the next crisis will come. Whether it is a pandemic, a natural disaster, or an economic shock, small businesses will again face impossible choices. If courts cannot reliably enforce contracts that involve more than a year's worth of commitments, then the events business model itself becomes undesirable. Entertainment Managers LLC ultimately chose to focus on other, more predictable areas of business — not because the company failed, but because the courts demonstrated that the foundational contracts of the events industry cannot be relied upon. The next generation of small business owners will learn that lesson too.

The Human Cost

Behind the case numbers and legal citations are real people. Over 100 employees whose livelihoods depended on Entertainment Managers LLC. Hundreds of couples who held their weddings because the company honored its rescheduling commitments. A community venue that anchored downtown Kalamazoo for over a decade.

The courts were asked to resolve individual disputes. But in doing so, they ignored the web of obligations, relationships, and commitments that make a small business a living part of its community. Justice that cannot see beyond the four corners of a single complaint is not justice at all — it is accounting with a gavel.

Cases remain pending. But regardless of how the remaining legal battles resolve, the broader failure has already occurred: a court system that cannot reliably enforce event contracts spanning more than a year has made an entire business model untenable. Entertainment Managers LLC has chosen to focus on more predictable areas of business — a rational response to a system that asked a small business to follow the law, then punished it for doing exactly that.