the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action is discovered. (Pl.’s Resp. 5.) However, this decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court in Boyle, supra, where the Court expressly rejected the application of such a “discovery rule” to claims of fraud or intentional misrepresentation: “The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the discovery rule applies to the accrual of actions for fraud. That holding directly contradicts Ramsey [v. Child, Hulswit & Co., 198 Mich. 658, 165 N.W. 936 (1917) ] and Thatcher [v. Detroit Trust Co., 288 Mich. 410, 285 N.W. 2 (1939) ] and ignores the plain language of M.C.L. § 600.5813 and 600.5827.” 468 Mich, at 231-232, 661 N.W.2d 557. See also Lorimer v. Berrelez, 331 F.Supp.2d 585, 592-593 (E.D.Mich.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citing Boyle, supra). Accordingly, Plaintiffs
holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that a rule 10b5 claim begins to run when a defendant makes an affirmative misrepresentation holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim holding as to a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under michigan law that the sixyear statute of limitations begins to run when the misrepresentation was perpetrated and not when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the misrepresentation holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered