Brendt D. Flanagan v. Stumble Inn LLC , 2023 WI App 31 ( 2023 )

2023 WI App 31COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
PUBLISHED OPINION
Case No.: 2022AP584
Complete Title of Case:
BRENDT D. FLANAGAN,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V.
STUMBLE INN LLC, RONALD C. MENTEK,
BONNIE J. MENTEK AND
SOCIETY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Opinion Filed: May 3, 2023
Submitted on Briefs: February 3, 2023
Oral Argument:
JUDGES: Gundrum, P.J., Grogan and Lazar, JJ.
Concurred:
Dissented:
Appellant
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the
briefs of Monte E. Weiss of Weiss Law Office, S.C., Mequon, and
Osman A. Mirza of OS Mirza Law, LLC, Milwaukee.
Respondent
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on
the brief of Jeffrey Leavell of Jeffrey Leavell, S.C., Racine.
2023 WI App 31COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
May 3, 2023
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.
Appeal No. 2022AP584 Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV565
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
BRENDT D. FLANAGAN,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V.
STUMBLE INN LLC, RONALD C. MENTEK, BONNIE J. MENTEK AND SOCIETY
INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Kenosha County: CHAD G. KERKMAN, Judge. Reversed and remanded for
further proceedings.
Before Gundrum, P.J., Grogan and Lazar, JJ.
¶1 GUNDRUM, P.J. Brendt D. Flanagan contends the circuit court
erred in granting summary judgment to Stumble Inn LLC, Ronald C. Mentek,
No. 2022AP584
Bonnie J. Mentek, and Society Insurance A Mutual Company (collectively,
Respondents) on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over
Respondents because the summons incorrectly indicated that their answers were due
in twenty days, as opposed to forty-five.1 Flanagan does not dispute that the
summons incorrectly indicated the number of days Respondents had to answer 2; he
insists, however, the error did not deprive the circuit court of personal jurisdiction
because it was a mere technical defect. We agree with Flanagan and reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
Background
¶2 Flanagan filed suit on June 30, 2021, alleging he was physically
injured during a violent altercation at the Stumble Inn. Respondents timely filed an
answer eighteen days after service of the summons and complaint, which answer
included an affirmative defense asserting the circuit court lacked personal
jurisdiction over Respondents due to a defective summons. Respondents
subsequently moved for summary judgment on this basis, and the court granted the
motion. Flanagan appeals.
Discussion
¶3 The parties in this case agree there was a defect in the summons but
disagree as to whether the defect affects personal jurisdiction. When personal
1
He also appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his motion for reconsideration.
Neither party addresses that order, and thus, we discuss it no further.
2
Flanagan states in his brief-in-chief that the summons “contained an error”—“the
incorrect time to answer deadline”—because it identified the deadline as twenty days instead of
forty-five days. While we refer in this decision to the twenty-day deadline in the summons as an
“error” and a “defect,” because the parties agree the twenty-day deadline was a defect/error and
thus do not develop arguments on this point, we assume without deciding that the twenty-day
deadline is a defect/error.
2
No. 2022AP584
jurisdiction is challenged based upon a defect in the summons, “we must determine
whether it is a fundamental defect or a technical defect.” Rabideau v. Stiller, 2006
WI App 155, ¶9, 295 Wis. 2d 417, 720 N.W.2d 108. “Where a defect is technical,
the court has personal jurisdiction only if the complainant can show the defendant
was not prejudiced. Where a defect is fundamental, no personal jurisdiction attaches
regardless of prejudice.” Id. (citation omitted). “Whether a defect is technical or
fundamental is a question of law we review de novo.” Id.¶4 We also review de novo the circuit court’s grant of summary
judgment. Paskiewicz v. American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WI App 92, ¶4, 349
Wis. 2d 515, 834 N.W.2d 866. “Summary judgment is properly granted if there is
no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Girl,
Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶22, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65.
¶5 In Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Omark-Prentice Hydraulics, Inc., 86
Wis. 2d 369, 272 N.W.2d 407 (Ct. App. 1978), we considered the question of
“whether the omission in the summons of [the statutorily-required] statement that
the answer must be served within twenty days after the date of service of the
summons and complaint deprives the [circuit] court of [personal] jurisdiction.” Id.
at 371. Noting that “the purpose of a summons … is to give notice to the defendant
that an action has been commenced against him,” we held that the error was a mere
technical defect and absent any prejudice to the defendant, did not deprive the circuit
court of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 373-74. Canadian Pacific carries much weight
for the case now before us as the facts agreed to by the parties here are that Flanagan
included in the summons notice of the wrong time period for defendants to answer—
twenty days instead of forty-five.
3
No. 2022AP584
¶6 Respondents put all their eggs into the basket of contending Canadian
Pacific is no longer good law because in American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
v. Royal Insurance Co., 167 Wis. 2d 524, 533, 481 N.W.2d 629 (1992), our state
supreme court formulated a technical/fundamental defect test that was different than
the analysis used by the Canadian Pacific court. Respondents’ eggs all get cracked
right out of the gate as the American Family court did nothing to undermine the
actual holding of Canadian Pacific that the defect in that case was merely a
technical defect that did not prejudice the defendant. Furthermore, a review of
subsequent case law reinforces that the relevant holding of Canadian Pacific is still
good law.
¶7 In Dungan v. County of Pierce, 170 Wis. 2d 89, 486 N.W.2d 579 (Ct.
App. 1992), for example, decided after American Family, we stated:
[C]ases allowing for nonprejudicial technical defects
involved errors in content and form governed by [WIS. STAT.
§§] 801.09 and 801.095 … and errors committed by
someone other than the plaintiff. Errors in content and form
of the summons and complaint are consistently held to be
technical defects that do not automatically deprive the court
of jurisdiction. In Canadian Pac[ific] …, the court
determined a summons failing to direct the defendant to
answer within twenty days was a technical defect that did
not prejudice the defendant.
Dungan, 170 Wis. 2d at 96 (citations omitted).
¶8 In Gaddis v. La Crosse Products, Inc., 198 Wis. 2d 396, 542 N.W.2d
454 (1996), our supreme court considered “whether Gaddis’ failure to sign a
summons that was served with a signed complaint constitutes a
fundamental defect depriving the circuit court of personal jurisdiction over
La Crosse Products.” Id. at 399. Addressing this issue, the court referred
approvingly to our decision in Canadian Pacific, stating:
4
No. 2022AP584
[T]he American Family court … recognized that Wisconsin
courts have allowed for nonprejudicial technical errors
where the defect relates to the content or form of the
summons. For example, in Canadian Pac[ific] …, the
plaintiff’s summons omitted the direction that the defendant
must answer the complaint within 20 days as required by
WIS. STAT. § 801.09(2)(a). Upon finding that the defendant
was not prejudiced by the omission, the court of appeals
concluded that the defect was not jurisdictional.
Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 403 (citation omitted).3 Critical to the case now before us,
the court further stated: “We conclude that the failure to personally sign a summons,
like the omission of the 20-day answer notice in Canadian Pacific …, constitutes a
technical defect, provided that the summons is served with a signed complaint.”
Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 407. Thus, even if American Family had raised question as
to the continued validity of our holding in Canadian Pacific, by including in Gaddis
the phrase “like the omission of the 20-day answer notice in Canadian Pacific,” our
supreme court made an affirmative, post-American Family statement that “the
omission of the 20-day answer notice in Canadian Pacific … constitute[d] a
technical defect.” See Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 407. This holding of Canadian
Pacific is still good law and, along with our supreme court’s statement in Gaddis,
binding.
¶9 Importantly, Respondents make no effort to argue that there is any
meaningful difference between omitting the deadline-to-answer notice altogether,
3
Similar to our Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Omark-Prentice Hydraulics, Inc., 86 Wis. 2d
369, 272 N.W.2d 407 (Ct. App. 1978), statement as to the purpose of a summons, the Gaddis v. La
Crosse Products, Inc., 198 Wis. 2d 396, 542 N.W.2d 454 (1996), court also stated: “In contrast to
the complaint, the summons is a form document which merely serves to give notice to the defendant
that an action has been commenced against him or her.” Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 405 (citing
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Royal Insurance Co., 167 Wis. 2d 524, 530, 481
N.W.2d 629 (1992)). The court later indicated again that a summons has no “greater significance
… beyond mere notice.” Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 406.
5
No. 2022AP584
as in Canadian Pacific, and referencing an incorrect deadline, twenty days instead
of forty-five, as in this case,4 and we cannot readily discern a meaningful difference
under the facts of this case. As a result, we conclude that the summons error here,
like the summons error in Canadian Pacific, is a mere technical defect and, absent
prejudice to the Respondents, will not result in a dismissal on the basis of a lack of
personal jurisdiction. See Canadian Pacific, 86 Wis. 2d at 373-74.
¶10 Flanagan contends in his brief-in-chief on appeal that Respondents
were not prejudiced by the summons error in this case. Specifically, he points out
that Respondents “answered within the 20 days specified in the summons” and
“knew that the use of the 20-days clause was erroneous as they not only specifically
raised an affirmative defense that the summons was defective, but they also brought
a motion for summary judgement based on the error.” In their response brief,
Respondents make no attempt to argue they were prejudiced by the error, effectively
conceding Flanagan’s contention that they were not prejudiced. See Schlieper v.
DNR, 188 Wis. 2d 318, 322, 525 N.W.2d 99 (Ct. App. 1994). Flanagan persuades
us that Respondents suffered no prejudice due to the technical defect in the
summons.
¶11 Because we conclude the summons defect in this case was a mere
technical one and Flanagan has demonstrated that Respondents suffered no
prejudice because of it, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
4
Respondents state: “Notably in Canadian Pacific, the summons there simply omitted
the answer time. By contrast here, the summons misinformed the Respondents as to the proper
answer time, stating the wrong period contrary to [WIS. STAT. §] 801.09.” That is it; Respondents
make no greater effort to contend there is a meaningful difference between the summons defect in
Canadian Pacific and the one in this case. Respondents’ absence of an argument fails to persuade.
6
No. 2022AP584
By the Court.––Judgment and order reversed and remanded for further
proceedings.
7