Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686, 690 (6th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We construe all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A. Aiding and Abetting Liability. The Michigan Supreme Court has never expressly recognized a common-law claim for aiding and abetting tortious conduct. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals has done so in several contexts. See Echelon Homes L.L.C. v. Carter Lumber Co., 261 Mich.App. 424, 683 N.W.2d 171, 179 (2004), rev’d in part on other grounds by 472 Mich. 192, 694 N.W.2d 544 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Kratze v. Indep. Order of Oddfellows, 190
holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors  are chargeable directly as principals holding that civil liability for aiding and abetting requires showing that substantive offense was committed recognizing aiding and abetting trespass recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion