Joseph Peter Stadtmueller

This case concerned a real estate sale where BRIC, after selling its primary asset (an office building) to the plaintiff for about $1.3 million and agreeing to a leaseback, transferred $400,000 to the defendants (former partial owners) to satisfy a prior redemption agreement, leaving BRIC insolvent and unable to pay rent or a resulting state-court judgment of $152,139. The plaintiff sued the defendants alleging the transfer was fraudulent under state law and sought to hold them liable for BRIC's debts. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part on the various claims, and later denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that ruling. The core reasoning was that the newly presented evidence did not clearly establish any violation of state law invalidating the underlying agreement or show manifest injustice warranting reconsideration, as the transfer appeared supported by reasonably equivalent value and fair terms.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Brownmark Films, the co-owner of the music video "What What (In the Butt)," against the producers of South Park for including a 58-second parody of the video in the 2008 episode "Canada on Strike," where a character mimics the original in an effort to go viral. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissing the action with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the South Park segment qualified as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 because it was a transformative parody commenting on the viral video phenomenon rather than a market substitute for the original work, with the first, second, third, and fourth fair use factors all weighing in favor of the defendants; the court also noted procedural deficiencies and the plaintiff's failure to address fair use despite multiple opportunities to amend.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns a contract dispute in which plaintiff Servicios sought to hold defendant JCI liable for allegedly unpaid invoices issued to its subsidiary JCAM by asserting that JCI and JCAM operated as a joint venture or joint enterprise or that JCAM was JCI's apparent agent. Servicios moved for partial summary judgment to establish these relationships as a matter of law based on corporate ownership structures, shared branding, and communications. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding day-to-day control, the significance of corporate reorganizations, and any manifestations of authority that would support apparent agency. These disputes precluded judgment as a matter of law under the applicable standards for summary judgment and the elements of joint venture and apparent authority under Wisconsin law, leaving the issues for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a shareholder's challenge to a 2010 merger agreement under which Allegheny Technologies would acquire Ladish Co., with claims that the proxy statement omitted or misstated material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, along with related Section 20(a) liability and Wisconsin-law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the company's directors. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the Section 14(a) allegations failed to meet the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's particularity requirements because they consisted of generalized assertions rather than specific statements identified as misleading with supporting facts. The Section 20(a) claim necessarily failed as derivative, and the fiduciary-duty claim was dismissed for lack of plausible allegations showing the directors acted in bad faith. The discovery coordination motion was denied as moot, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Anderson v. City of West Bend Police Department, plaintiffs Heather Anderson and Dustin Wichmann sued the police department, its insurer, and two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Wisconsin privacy law, alleging that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering their apartment without a warrant and arresting them after responding to a 911 call about a loud domestic argument. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion in full and granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part. The court reasoned that the officers' warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances, as the 911 report of screams for help, banging sounds, and the woman's distraught appearance and failure to reappear created an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside needed immediate assistance; the arrests were supported by probable cause for disorderly conduct and the brief search was limited to the circumstances justifying entry.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute where Dr. White alleged that several LLC defendants continued to display his copyrighted photographs on websites after a licensing agreement had expired. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and a permanent injunction because the defendants failed to respond or defend against the amended complaint, and the well-pleaded allegations established ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized copying. As a result, the court ordered the defendants to cease using the images, surrender related materials, and pay $280,000 in statutory damages along with attorney's fees.

propertyprocedure

In Fail-Safe LLC v. A.O. Smith Corp., the plaintiff alleged that it shared proprietary information about a load-sensing pool pump motor with the defendant during business discussions, and that the defendant was unjustly enriched by using that information without compensation. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the remaining unjust enrichment claim under Wisconsin law. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiff could not satisfy the inequity element because it had voluntarily disclosed the information without securing intellectual property protections or a confidentiality agreement. The decision rested on the principle that Wisconsin unjust enrichment law does not allow recovery for benefits retained after such unprotected, voluntary sharing of ideas.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns whether state court tort judgments against debtor David Larsen for assaulting, kidnapping, and attempting to murder his ex-wife Teri Jendusa-Nicolai are dischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the creditors, ruling the judgments nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the state court findings established willful and malicious injury. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that issue preclusion barred Larsen from relitigating the nature of his conduct in bankruptcy proceedings. The underlying facts involved Larsen's conviction for attempted homicide and related federal kidnapping charges stemming from a violent attack that caused severe injuries including loss of toes and a miscarriage. Procedural deficiencies in Larsen's appeal were noted but did not alter the outcome.

criminal lawfamily lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a dispute between Fail-Safe, L.L.C. and A.O. Smith Corp. concerning an unjust enrichment claim based on services allegedly provided by the plaintiff. The court first addressed whether the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial, concluding that the claim sounds in quasi-contract and is legal in nature under Seventh Amendment analysis, thus preserving the right to a jury. The court then granted the defendant's motion in limine to exclude expert testimony on future damages and reasonable royalty valuations, reasoning that such methods lack foundation and are inappropriate for measuring the value of past services in this unjust enrichment context.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the United States suing Dee Luebke and two companies under the Fair Housing Act for allegedly failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled tenant who needed an assigned parking spot closer to his apartment building entrance due to mobility limitations. Luebke moved to dismiss the claims against her individually under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing she was not named as a respondent in the underlying HUD administrative charge. The court denied the motion, holding that the suit could proceed against her because she received adequate notice of the charges, participated in the administrative process, and there was reasonable cause to believe she was liable under the Act, consistent with exceptions recognized in prior case law.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved lengthy patent litigation in which M-B-W, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment that its ride-on power trowels did not infringe three patents owned by Allen Engineering (joined as a defendant along with Multiquip, Inc.) concerning hydraulic steering and rotor drive mechanisms for concrete finishing machines. After the court ruled in 2009 that M-B-W's products did not infringe any of the patents literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and dismissed Allen's counterclaims, M-B-W moved for costs, expenses, and attorneys' and experts' fees as the prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285, asserting that the case was exceptional due to alleged inequitable conduct and lack of merit in the infringement claims. The court denied the motion in full, concluding that M-B-W failed to establish the requisite exceptional circumstances or other grounds warranting an award of fees and costs under the statute or the court's inherent authority.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Mirbeau of Geneva Lake LLC's claims against the City of Lake Geneva and various individuals over the denial of a zoning change application for developing 54.5 acres of land into a mixed-use project including a hotel and winery. Mirbeau alleged violations of equal protection, due process, and other constitutional rights, along with tortious interference by newly added non-city defendants such as Lower Density Development, LLC, and others who opposed the project. The court addressed multiple pending motions, including motions to dismiss, focusing on the tortious interference claims against the non-city defendants. It granted dismissal of those claims, holding that they were barred by the statute of limitations because Mirbeau had sufficient facts to file suit by April 23, 2008. The decision also resolved related procedural motions regarding amended complaints, supplemental briefs, and default judgments to allow the case to proceed on the remaining claims.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitycivil rights

The case involved Landmark Credit Union suing its former employee Joan Doberstein in state court after she resigned and allegedly contacted clients, emailed sensitive client lists to her personal account, and altered password-protected web profiles to redirect clients to her new employer, in violation of her employment agreement. The defendant removed the case to federal court, citing a claim under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), prompting the court to examine its jurisdiction before addressing the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. Both parties are Wisconsin residents, eliminating diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, so the court assessed whether the CFAA claim created federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court concluded that the complaint failed to allege a viable CFAA violation because the defendant's access was authorized and did not cause the specific type of "damage" required by the statute, rendering the federal claim insubstantial. As a result, the court remanded the entire case, including any counterclaims, to Waukesha County Circuit Court and denied the TRO motion as moot.

procedurecriminal law

This case involves a data aggregation company, Edgenet, suing competitors GS1 entities and related standards organizations over alleged efforts to exclude it from the Global Data Synchronisation Network by misusing standards processes, certifications, and tax status representations, with claims including monopolization, racketeering, copyright infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), granting it in part by dismissing most claims but denying it in part to allow the copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets counts to proceed. The core reasoning was that the surviving claims plausibly alleged protectable intellectual property in the plaintiff's Master Collection taxonomy and attributes as unique combinations not readily ascertainable, while the other claims failed to meet pleading standards for elements like antitrust injury or predicate acts.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a commercial dispute between Fail-Safe LLC, which developed safety vacuum release systems (SVRS) to prevent pool suction entrapment, and A.O. Smith Corp., after the companies discussed the technology in 2002 without a written agreement or confidentiality protections. Fail-Safe sued in 2008, asserting claims including unjust enrichment based on A.O. Smith's alleged use of information about load-sensing pump motors and related features. On the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the court found triable issues of fact as to whether Fail-Safe conferred a benefit on A.O. Smith that the latter should compensate, allowing the unjust enrichment claim to proceed while noting the absence of any formal contract and the late filing of suit. The reasoning relies on undisputed facts about the parties' technology development efforts and circumstantial evidence that A.O. Smith's later products incorporated elements from the information shared.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Bertram Communications LLC's appeal from the bankruptcy court's order disallowing its request for an administrative expense claim for post-petition internet services provided to debtor Netwurx, Inc., an ISP, after Netwurx filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in June 2008. The district court reviewed the sole remaining issue on appeal after dismissing the plan confirmation challenge, focusing on whether Bertram's services qualified for administrative priority under the Bankruptcy Code. After examining testimony from the parties' representatives regarding a May 2008 meeting and subsequent communications, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's disallowance, finding that Bertram continued providing services voluntarily despite clear statements that Netwurx would not pay and that no enforceable contract or expectation of compensation existed under Wisconsin law. The decision emphasized that the services did not meet the criteria for administrative expenses, as Bertram had the ability to terminate service but chose not to based on its own research and understanding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Melody Rose, an HIV-positive inmate, sued Dr. Steven Cahee, Fond du Lac Regional Clinic, and Agnesian Healthcare after Dr. Cahee declined to perform gallbladder surgery, citing risks from her untreated HIV status. Rose alleged violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Wisconsin anti-discrimination statutes. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing exemptions from federal disability laws, lack of coverage under the statutes, preemption of state claims, and insufficient evidence on the merits. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, addressing issues such as whether the providers were subject to the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, religious exemptions, and whether factual disputes precluded judgment on the discrimination claims.

civil rightshealthcare

This case concerns former and current participants in two cash balance pension plans who sued under ERISA, alleging that the plans impermissibly backloaded benefits and failed to apply a proper whipsaw calculation when making pre-retirement lump sum distributions. The court granted summary judgment to the plans on the backloading claim. On the lump sum claim, the court found that claims by certain subclasses were barred by the statute of limitations because the participants had received plan documents omitting the required calculation more than six years earlier, but it denied summary judgment on the appropriate interest crediting rate and ordered the plans to recalculate the distributions in accordance with ERISA requirements.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Petroleum & Franchise Funding LLC from a bankruptcy court order authorizing the sale of 66 parcels of real property to Convenience Stores Leasing & Management LLC for $11 million, along with related lease assumptions and rejections. CSLM moved to dismiss the appeal as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), arguing that PFF failed to obtain a stay of the sale order pending appeal, which would prevent any challenge to the sale's validity to a good-faith purchaser. PFF countered that it was specifically contesting CSLM's good-faith purchaser status, and Seventh Circuit precedents such as In re Sax and In re Andy Frain hold that a stay is not required when good faith is challenged. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the existing circuit authority allowed the appeal to proceed despite the lack of a stay, even while noting the potential tension with the statute's goals of finality in bankruptcy sales.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Traci Lemmermann's product liability claims against Arch Chemicals and related defendants after she allegedly suffered respiratory injuries when mixing a pool shock product (Sock It) with water on June 11, 2005. Lemmermann, who had a pre-existing history of asthma and allergies, asserted the product exploded upon mixing and that the label's warnings were inadequate. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, contending the plaintiff lacked competent, admissible expert evidence on causation and that the product's warnings were sufficient. The court reviewed the undisputed facts on her medical history, the incident, and product labeling, along with motions to exclude expert testimony, and concluded that summary judgment was warranted due to the absence of reliable expert proof linking the product to her claimed injuries.

torts & liability