Key legal question
Whether the filing could be treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint and was admissible
Extracted holding
The filing was manifestly inadmissible because it did not allege any constitutional rights violation or engage with the cantonal reasoning.
Extracted reasoning
The value in dispute and absence of a fundamental legal question excluded an ordinary federal appeal, so only a subsidiary constitutional complaint was possible. Such a remedy requires specific constitutional reasoning under Arts. 42(2) and 106(2) LTF, which the filing lacked.