Civil Procedure — amendment of pleadings

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — amendment of pleadings

Larry and Marion Schotz, LS Marketing, LLC, LS Researching Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, LS Marketing Defined Benefit Pension Plan and William Steinke (collectively, “plaintiffs”) appeal the circuit court’s order dismissing their First Amended Complaint against Indianapolis Life Insurance Co., Timothy Nettesheim, Reinhart Boerner and Van Duren, SC, Joel Nettesheim, Suby Von Haden and Associates, and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (collectively, “defendants”). The First Amended Complaint alleged that the defendants negligently misrepresented the tax benefits and risks of certain defined benefit plans. The plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred when it granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failing to plead the negligent misrepresentation claims with particularity, in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 802.03(2) (2009-10). The plaintiffs also argue that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to grant the plaintiffs leave to again amend the complaint. Because we conclude that the heightened pleading specificity requirements of § 802.03(2) apply to the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and that the specificity requirements were not met, we affirm the circuit court. We also conclude that the circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ oral motion to again amend their complaint. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP209 Schotz, et al. v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co., et al.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, White, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Steinle, W. Timothy, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Weber, Ralph A., Milwaukee; Brennan, Michael B., Milwaukee; Kennedy, Dan, Milwaukee