02-1573 Habermehl Electric, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Listen to this article

“[W]e conclude that, even if the proceeding before the DWD was a contested case, in the absence of notice of the thirty-day time period for judicial review as provided in Wis. Stat. §§ 227.48(2) and 227.53(1)(a)2, Habermehl had six months from the date of the December 8, 2000 decision to file a petition for judicial review of that decision. Habermehl’s motion seeking to amend the complaint to add DWD and to add a request for judicial review of its decision was filed five months after the expiration of that six-month period. Accordingly, the court’s conclusion that the amendment would be futile, although based on a different analysis, was correct.”

Further, we conclude the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Habermehl’s motion to amend its complaint to add DWD as a party and to add a claim for judicial review of DWD’s December 8, 2000 administrative decision. The amendment would have been futile. The claim for judicial review would have been subject to dismissal as time-barred and the constitutional claims against DWD that Habermehl apparently seeks to pursue would have been subject to dismissal based on the doctrine of claim preclusion.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Flanagan, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Kimberly A. Hurtado, Brookfield; Richard John Anderson III, Brookfield; Francisco Javier Vasquez III, Brookfield; Elizabeth Roat, Brookfield

For Respondent: William H. Ramsey, Madison