VanLieshout et al v. Beaudoin
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/5/2017: GRANTING 12 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; DENYING as moot 24 Plaintiff's Motions within her judicial correspondence; and DISMISSING action with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Christina M. Beaudoin) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTINA M. BEAUDOIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-CV-37-JPS
v.
JOHN M. VANLIESHOUT and REINHART
BOERNER VANDEUREN S.C.,
ORDER
Defendants.
On February 14, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint. (Docket #12). On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an “Answer
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” which the Court treats as her response.
See (Docket #21 and #22). Defendants offered a reply in support of their
motion on March 31, 2017. (Docket #23). As explained below, Defendants’
motion must be granted.
This action suffers from a number of procedural defects which
Plaintiff’s response does not challenge. See generally (Docket #21). Plaintiff has
styled this matter as a “removal” in each of her pleadings. See (Docket #1 and
#6). It appears that Plaintiff wanted to remove the underlying state court
action to this Court. See (Docket #7). Even assuming the preconditions for
removal existed, Plaintiff was obligated to attempt removal no later than
September 12, 2016, but did not do so until January 9, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b); (Docket #1 and #14-2). The removal was therefore untimely and
ineffective. Further, summary judgment was granted in the underlying state
court action on January 25, 2017. (Docket #14-1). Plaintiff’s avenue to
challenge that decision is an appeal, not removal. Additionally, there is no
evidence that Defendants have been properly served with Plaintiff’s
pleadings. Dismissal is therefore proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(5).
Beyond these procedural missteps, Plaintiff’s pleading also lacks viable
substance. Plaintiff’s amended pleading cites no particular laws which
Defendants allegedly violated. See (Docket #6). Her response states that
Defendants committed “criminal fraud, felony grand theft, collusion,
conspiracy,” and many other crimes, as well as “attorney misconduct [and]
fraud on the Court.” (Docket #21 at 4-5). The remainder of the response
simply complains about the merits of the state court’s summary judgment
ruling. Id. at 5-12. Even generously reading a claim for fraud into the
complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege that any particular representation by
Defendants was false. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Malzewski v. Rapkin, 723
N.W.2d 156, 162 (Wis. App. 2006). For all of these reasons, Defendants’
motion must be granted and this action must be dismissed.1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket #12) be
and the same is hereby GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions within her
“judicial correspondence” (Docket #24) be and the same are hereby DENIED
as moot; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
1
To the extent Plaintiff’s “judicial correspondence,” filed on March 31, 2017,
requests action by the Court, the request(s) will be denied as moot. (Docket #24).
Page 2 of 3
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 5th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?