16-DV-966 Lancer Insurance Company v. Personalized Coaches Inc et al

Decision and Order

17-CV-386 Treiber & Straub Incorporated et al v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions Inc.

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs waived the right to deny assignment of the governing contract.  The terms of the contract applied to this case, necessitating summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

18-CV-72 McGee v. Wiedmeyer et al

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.  However, because neither Defendant deprived Plaintiff of anything, and because there was a rational basis for Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff could not state a claim. 

18-CV-561 Wisconsin Electrical Employees Health and Welfare Plan et al v. Lewins Electric LLC

 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

17-CV-1208 Rikkers v. Menard, Inc.

Order Granting Summary Judgment

Plaintiff argued that Menard’s mail-in rebate involved added expenses that deprived him of the full value of the claimed “11%” rebate.  Because the term “rebate” contemplates Menard’s practices, the Court granted summary judgment for Menard’s.

20-CV-1090 French et al v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company et al

Decision and Order

Complaint seeking to revise state-approved insurance rates was dismissed via judgment on the pleadings.  The Filed Rate Doctrine barred all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

20-CV-836 Weeks v. Credit One Bank, et al

Decision and Order

Complaint seeking recovery under Fair Credit Reporting Act was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiff’s assertions that defendants committed only bare procedural violations, divorced from any concrete harm, did not satisfy injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.

17-CV-313 Archer-Daniels-Midland Co v. Country Visions Coop

Decision and Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy court’s decision denying real estate purchaser’s motion to enforce plan confirmation order against holder of right of first refusal was not legally or factually erroneous.  The holder of the ROFR had not received sufficient notice to protect its interest before the property was sold; and because the purchaser knew or should have known of the defect in title, it could not claim bona fide purchaser status.

17-CV-1403 City of Milwaukee v City Wide

Decision and Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy court correctly applied law when denying debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A).

17-CV-1635 State v. Hansen

Decision and Order Reversing Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy court incorrectly concluded that penalty DWD assessed against debtor for failure to maintain worker’s compensation insurance fell outside the  exception to discharge in 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7).