Scheduling Order Enforcement-Appellate Sanctions

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: Scott M. Pettit v. Merrill Ice Draggers, Inc.

Case No.: 2024AP000403

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz, and Gill, JJ.

Focus: Scheduling Order Enforcement-Appellate Sanctions

The circuit court ruled against Scott and Stacy Pettit in their lawsuit against Merrill Ice Draggers, Inc. (MID), which arose from ice racing injuries caused by events held on a lake near the Pettits’ property.

The Court of Appeals determined that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying a late motion by the Pettits to amend the scheduling order. The Pettits’ counsel failed to meet deadlines, did not disclose witnesses, and delayed seeking relief despite opportunity. The court found the reasons offered, health issues and anticipated judicial reassignment, insufficient and unreasonable, especially given continued legal activity and the presence of co-counsel.

The court also upheld summary judgment in favor of MID. It rejected the Pettits’ claim that ambiguity in the scheduling order excused their failure to respond. The court noted the order clearly allowed dispositive motions and required responses within 30 days, during which time the Pettits took no action to respond or seek clarification, and the court found no error in proceeding with summary judgment based on the undisputed record.

Finally, the court agreed that the Pettits’ post-judgment request was properly treated as a motion for reconsideration, not for relief under statute, because they failed to raise statutory grounds. Their arguments did not demonstrate any legal error warranting reconsideration.

MID was awarded costs, but not attorney fees, as the appeal was not shown to be frivolous.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/14/26

Full Text