2004AP2655 Tietsworth et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

Listen to this article

“The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that it lacked authority to reopen this case to allow further proceedings on remand from the supreme court in Tietsworth, 270 Wis. 2d 146, ¶45, and in denying Tietsworth’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen and amend the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with specific directions to the trial court to enter an order granting the motion and allowing Tietsworth to file the second amended complaint and proceed with its contract and warranty claims….

“The mandate by the supreme court in this case simply ‘reversed the decision of the court of appeals’ and remanded the matter to the trial court. The supreme court’s decision did not affirm a judgment of dismissal or direct that a judgment of dismissal be entered. The only trial court order, which this court reversed on appeal, was dismissal of the tort claims….

“In sum, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Tietsworth’s motion seeking to reopen the matter, and that the trial court erred in denying Tietsworth’s motion to file an amended complaint. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand with specific directions that the trial court enter an order allowing Tietsworth to file the second amended complaint asserting the claims recognized by the supreme court in its March 26, 2004 decision.”

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Guolee, J., Wedemeyer, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Guri Ademi, Cudahy; Shpetim Ademi, Cudahy; David J. Bershad, New York, NY; Michael M. Buchman, New York, NY; Frank T. Crivello II, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert L. Binder, Milwaukee; W. Stuart Parsons, Milwaukee; Patrick W. Schmidt, Milwaukee; Kelly H. Twigger, Milwaukee