Sanimax LLC v. Blue Honey Bio-Fuels, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
May 19, 2020
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2019AP166 Cir. Ct. No. 2014CV212

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

SANIMAX LLC,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

BLUE HONEY BIO-FUELS, INC.,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,

COULEE REGION BIO-FUELS, LLC,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,

V.

JOHN HOLMES,

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Trempealeau
County: ANNA L. BECKER, Judge. Affirmed.
No. 2019AP166

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

¶1 SEIDL, J. Sanimax LLC appeals a judgment awarding money
damages and attorney’s fees to Blue Honey Bio-Fuels, Inc., and Coulee Region
Bio-Fuels, LLC.1 Sanimax contends the circuit court erred by: (1) failing to
dismiss Blue Honey’s defamation counterclaim on the ground that it failed to
comply with the heightened pleading standard set forth in WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6)
(2017-18)2; and (2) awarding Blue Honey attorney’s fees under WIS. STAT.
§ 134.90(4)(c). We conclude that Sanimax forfeited its first argument and that its
second argument lacks merit. Consequently, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Sanimax and Blue Honey are competitors in the business of
collecting and processing used cooking oil. More specifically, the companies
compete for the right to purchase the “fryer oil” that is generated by food service
companies during food frying operations. After purchasing this oil, the companies
refine it into biodiesel products.

¶3 Sanimax is a large corporation headquartered in Canada. At the
times relevant to this appeal, it commanded approximately a seventy percent share
of the used cooking oil market in Wisconsin. Blue Honey is, by comparison, a
much smaller operator based in Trempealeau County.

1
Blue Honey and Coulee Region Bio-Fuels are the same party in interest; Coulee
Region does business as Blue Honey. We refer to the two entities collectively as Blue Honey.
2
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise
noted.

2
No. 2019AP166

¶4 Stephan Myers began working in the used cooking oil industry in
1979, at the age of fifteen. His uncle, Wayne Sadek, formerly owned and operated
Burbank Grease Services.3 In 2009, Myers began working for Sanimax as a sales
representative. Myers excelled in this role, exceeding his sales quota each quarter
he held the position.

¶5 Despite his sales success, Myers grew dissatisfied with his
employment at Sanimax in late 2013. This dissatisfaction was tied to the hiring of
Myers’ new supervisor, William Molander, who cut Myers’ performance-based
bonuses and implemented other policies that negatively affected Myers’
compensation. Consequently, Myers—an at-will employee who was not subject to
a noncompete agreement—decided to leave the company.

¶6 In May 2014, before anyone at Sanimax became aware that Myers
intended to leave the company, Myers participated in a Sanimax “sales blitz.” A
sales blitz, according to Sanimax dispatcher Traci Olrick, is a one-to two-week
period during which the Sanimax sales team focuses its efforts on a specific
geographic region in order to generate additional “sales.”4

¶7 To facilitate the May 2014 sales blitz, Olrick prepared and emailed a
spreadsheet to Myers and approximately fifteen to twenty other sales
representatives. This spreadsheet contained information for businesses in the blitz

3
Sanimax is a successor in interest to Burbank Grease Services; Burbank was purchased
by Anamax Group, which in turn was purchased by Sanimax. According to Sanimax employee
William Molander, Burbank “began” the used cooking oil industry in Wisconsin.
4
We observe that on appeal, as in the circuit court, the parties refer to the acquisition of
the right to purchase used cooking oil from a producer as a “sale,” even though the collector (i.e.,
Blue Honey or Sanimax) actually purchases the oil from the producer. We follow the parties’
lead in this respect.

3
No. 2019AP166

region, including current customers’ names, account numbers, and pricing
information. Although employees were instructed not to print the list due to its
length, Myers requested that Olrick print a copy for him, and she did so.5 It
appears to be undisputed that Myers returned his copy of this list to a Sanimax
employee after the sales blitz was completed.

¶8 Myers resigned his position with Sanimax on June 5, 2014. Eleven
days later, he began working for Blue Honey. Shortly thereafter, Sanimax began
receiving termination notices from customers in Myers’ former sales territory.
The notices were prepared using a standard template that Sanimax had never
before received from departing customers and that appeared to contain Myers’
handwriting.

¶9 Based on the foregoing, Sanimax surmised that Myers: (1) had
decided to leave his position with Sanimax prior to the May 2014 sales blitz;
(2) knew he would immediately begin working for Blue Honey; and (3) had
obtained the sales blitz customer list so that he could utilize it in some fashion to
persuade his former customers to switch their accounts to Blue Honey.
Accordingly, Sanimax sued Blue Honey in October 2014, asserting claims of
aiding and abetting a breach of duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment,
misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of confidential information, and tortious
interference with contract.

5
We note that there was conflicting testimony at trial as to whether the list printed for
Myers contained information for customers located solely within the sales blitz territory or
whether it represented all of Myers’ customer accounts. And, on appeal, the parties still dispute
the exact contents of this printed list. For reasons explained more fully below, however, the
precise scope of the customer list is not material to our decision because even assuming that
Myers had taken a list as described by Sanimax, that list could not have constituted a trade secret
under applicable law.

4
No. 2019AP166

¶10 Blue Honey filed an answer and counterclaim. As relevant to this
appeal, Blue Honey generally asserted in its counterclaim that Sanimax had
engaged in “predatory and anticompetitive conduct and acts.” Sanimax moved to
dismiss Blue Honey’s counterclaim “pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)[(a)]6[.]
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” At a hearing, the
circuit court determined that the “pleadings are lacking,” but it granted Blue
Honey leave to amend its counterclaim.

¶11 In its amended counterclaim, Blue Honey asserted that Sanimax
made “threats” to Blue Honey’s customers in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.6 Blue
Honey also asserted that Sanimax’s lawsuit was “an oppressive effort by Sanimax
on grounds that it knows do not hold validity.” In support of this assertion, Blue
Honey stated that

the essence of the current controversy is a claim that
Stephan Myers took a customer list and later made contact
with [Sanimax]’s customers in aid of the business of [Blue
Honey]. That does not state a legal claim [based upon]
Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski, 2006 WI
103, 294 Wis. 2d 274, 717 N.W.2d 781.

¶12 Sanimax moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim. As before,
Sanimax brought its motion “pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)[(a)]6[.] for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The circuit court denied
this motion after determining that the amended counterclaim met “the minimum
standards for what their allegations are.” The court then issued a scheduling order.

6
Although the amended counterclaim did not explicitly refer to these threats as
defamatory, the parties agree on appeal that this allegation served as the basis for a defamation
claim that was later submitted to the jury.

5
No. 2019AP166

¶13 Blue Honey learned in discovery that, in the wake of Myers’
departure from Sanimax, a Sanimax sales manager had instructed Sanimax sales
representatives to inform clients that Myers was dishonest and had stolen
Sanimax’s book of business. At least one Sanimax sales representative,
John Holmes, stated that he followed these instructions for several months in late
2014.

¶14 The matter proceeded to a five-day jury trial in August 2018. The
jury ultimately rejected all of Sanimax’s claims against Blue Honey. In doing so,
the jury specifically found that Myers did not “intentionally take” Sanimax’s
customer list and that, in any event, the list did not constitute a trade secret.7

¶15 On Blue Honey’s counterclaims, the jury found that Sanimax had
engaged in restraint of trade and tortious interference of contract, but it awarded
no damages on either claim. The jury also found that Sanimax, through its
employees, had defamed Blue Honey and awarded $100,000 in damages.

¶16 Blue Honey filed a postverdict motion seeking, in relevant part, an
award of attorney’s fees under WIS. STAT. § 134.90(4)(c).8 At a hearing on
Blue Honey’s motion, the circuit court found that Sanimax’s claim for
misappropriation of trade secrets was maintained objectively and subjectively in
bad faith. The court therefore awarded Blue Honey $50,102.09 in attorney’s fees

7
The jury was not also asked to determine whether Myers unintentionally took
Sanimax’s customer list.
8
WISCONSIN STAT. § 134.90(4)(c) provides that if a party makes a claim of
misappropriation of trade secrets “in bad faith … the court may award reasonable attorney fees to
the prevailing party.”

6
No. 2019AP166

under § 134.90(4)(c) and entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. Sanimax now
appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. WISCONSIN STAT. § 802.03(6)

¶17 On appeal, Sanimax first argues that the circuit court erred by failing
to dismiss Blue Honey’s defamation counterclaim. Sanimax reasons that
Blue Honey’s counterclaim failed to set forth the “particular words” alleged to
have been defamatory, and the counterclaim therefore failed to meet the statutory
requirement for defamation claims set forth in WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6). See
Ashker v. Aurora Med. Grp., Inc., 2013 WI App 143, ¶11, 352 Wis. 2d 193, 841
N.W.2d 297.

¶18 Blue Honey responds that Sanimax forfeited any argument related to
WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6) by failing to raise that statute before the circuit court. 9 We
agree with Blue Honey.

¶19 As a general rule, we do not consider arguments raised for the first
time on appeal. See Townsend v. Massey, 2011 WI App 160, ¶¶23-27, 338

9
We note that Blue Honey argues noncompliance with WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6) is an
affirmative defense, and that we should therefore deem Sanimax to have waived its § 802.03(6)
argument by failing to raise it in a responsive pleading. See Maple Grove Country Club Inc. v.
Maple Grove Estates Sanitary Dist., 2019 WI 43, ¶3, 386 Wis. 2d 425, 926 N.W.2d 184. We
need not, and do not, decide whether noncompliance with § 802.03(6) constitutes an affirmative
defense, because our conclusion that Sanimax forfeited its § 802.03(6) argument is not based
upon when or in what form Sanimax raised its argument before the circuit court; rather, it is based
upon the fact that Sanimax failed to raise its argument at all. See Patrick Fur Farm, Inc. v.
United Vaccines, Inc., 2005 WI App 190, ¶8 n.1, 286 Wis. 2d 774, 703 N.W.2d 707 (court of
appeals decides cases on the narrowest possible grounds).

7
No. 2019AP166

Wis. 2d 114, 808 N.W.2d 155. One rationale for this rule is that it prevents
disruption of the judicial process by allowing the circuit court the opportunity to
address any objections in the first instance. Id., ¶26. Requiring a party to raise all
arguments in the circuit court also gives the opposing party notice and an
opportunity to address the objection. Id. Further, the rule functions to prevent
appellate courts from blindsiding circuit courts with reversals based on legal
theories which did not originate in their forum. Id., ¶25. To that end, the “rule
focuses on whether particular arguments have been preserved, not on whether
general issues were raised before the circuit court.” Id.

¶20 Sanimax acknowledges in it reply brief that it never raised a WIS.
STAT. § 802.03(6) argument before the circuit court. Nonetheless, it argues that
we should consider its argument under this statute for the first time on appeal
because it “unsuccessful[y] object[ed] to the vagueness of Blue Honey’s
counterclaim as a whole” under WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2) and thus “never waived or
abandoned its objection to Blue Honey’s defamation claims.”

¶21 The problem with Sanimax’s argument is that it would undermine
the purposes of the forfeiture rule set forth above. To explain, if we now
considered Sanimax’s argument that Blue Honey’s counterclaim should have been
dismissed pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6), we would potentially blindside the
circuit court with a reversal after nearly four years of litigation up to and including
a jury trial, based upon an entirely new theory as to why Blue Honey’s
counterclaim was deficient at the pleading stage. Far from promoting judicial
efficiency or fairness in litigation, such a result would encourage parties to
develop new arguments on appeal—regardless of how much time, money, and
judicial resources could have been conserved had the argument been timely raised
below.

8
No. 2019AP166

¶22 Our conclusion that application of the forfeiture rule is warranted
here is further supported by the fact that Sanimax did not object to the evidence
Blue Honey introduced to support its defamation counterclaim, under any legal
theory, after the circuit court denied its motion to dismiss. In other words,
Sanimax allowed the jury to be presented evidence on Blue Honey’s defamation
counterclaim and to return a verdict on the same, without alerting the court or Blue
Honey that it thought such action was improper. Moreover—despite Sanimax’s
assertion on appeal that Blue Honey waited until the “eleventh hour” to fill in the
particulars of its counterclaim—Sanimax itself submitted a proposed special
verdict form that addressed the allegedly defamatory statements Blue Honey
uncovered in discovery and asked the jury to determine if they were, in fact,
“defamatory.” Thus, Sanimax, at the least, implicitly consented to the propriety of
litigating Blue Honey’s defamation counterclaim. See WIS. STAT. § 802.09(2) (“If
issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the
pleadings.”). For all these reasons, we deem Sanimax’s WIS. STAT. § 802.03(6)
argument forfeited.

II. WISCONSIN STAT. § 134.90(4)(c)

¶23 Sanimax next argues that the circuit court erred by awarding Blue
Honey attorney’s fees under WIS. STAT. § 134.90(4)(c). The parties appear to
agree that no published Wisconsin case has addressed an award of attorney’s fees
under this statute. Given that § 134.90(4)(c) is a part of the Uniform Trade Secrets
Act (UTSA), however, they also appear to agree that our interpretation of what
constitutes the “bad faith” necessary to justify an award of attorney’s fees under

9
No. 2019AP166

§ 134.90(4)(c) is guided by the decisions of appellate courts in other jurisdictions
that have adopted the UTSA. See WIS. STAT. § 134.90(7)10; Burbank Grease, 294
Wis. 2d 274, ¶26 (recognizing that Wisconsin courts generally interpret and apply
provisions in § 134.90 “in accord with other UTSA jurisdictions”).

¶24 The parties further agree on appeal—as they did in the circuit
court—on the two-prong test that the majority of jurisdictions have applied to
determine whether a misappropriation of trade secrets claim has been made in bad
faith. Specifically, they agree that the fee-seeking party must demonstrate
that: (1) the trade secrets claim was objectively specious; and (2) there was
subjective bad faith (i.e., an improper purpose) in bringing or maintaining the
claim. See SASCO v. Rosendin Elec., Inc., 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828, 834 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2012).

¶25 Thus, we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact—that
is, whether Sanimax’s trade secrets claim was objectively specious under
applicable law and whether the circuit court properly found that Sanimax brought
its claim for an improper purpose. We apply a clearly erroneous standard to the
latter question, while we independently review the former.11 See Wassenaar v.
Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983); see also Elmakias v.
Wayda, 228 Wis. 2d 312, 319, 596 N.W.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1999).

10
WISCONSIN STAT. § 134.90(7) provides that § 134.90 “shall be applied and construed
to make uniform the law relating to misappropriation of trade secrets among states enacting
substantially identical laws.”
11
We observe that WIS. STAT. § 134.90(4)(c) does not mandate an award of attorney’s
fees if the circuit court determines that a misappropriation of trade secrets claim has been made in
bad faith; rather, the statute provides that a court “may award” fees in such a situation. Because
Sanimax argues only that the court erred in determining that Sanimax pursued its claim in bad
faith, we do not further address this issue.

10
No. 2019AP166

¶26 We begin by considering whether Sanimax’s misappropriation of
trade secrets claim was objectively specious, as a matter of law. We conclude that
it was, based upon our decision in Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski,
2005 WI App 28, ¶¶19-23, 278 Wis. 2d 698, 693 N.W.2d 89, aff’d in part, rev’d
in part on other grounds, 2006 WI 103, 294 Wis. 2d 274, 717 N.W.2d 781.12

¶27 It is axiomatic that to successfully pursue a misappropriation of trade
secrets claim, a plaintiff must show that the information allegedly misappropriated
by a defendant was, in fact, a trade secret. Here, the information that Sanimax
alleged Myers misappropriated was a customer list—a type of information which
may, under certain circumstances, constitute a trade secret within the meaning of
WIS. STAT. § 134.90(1)(c). See Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander, 147 Wis. 2d 842,
857, 434 N.W.2d 773 (1989). Critically, however, we held in Burbank Grease
that in the “grease collection industry,”13 customer lists indistinguishable from the
one at issue here (i.e., lists containing customers’ names, addresses, contact
persons, along with a collector’s internal pricing information) did not constitute a
trade secret. See Burbank Grease, 278 Wis. 2d 698, ¶¶19-23.

¶28 Sanimax attempts to distinguish the present case from Burbank
Grease on three grounds, none of which persuade us. First, it argues that the
former employee in Burbank Grease “did not abscond with pricing information

12
In Burbank Grease, the parties disputed before this court whether the customer lists at
issue constituted trade secrets. Burbank Grease Servs., LLC v. Sokolowski, 2005 WI App 28,
¶1, 278 Wis. 2d 698, 693 N.W.2d 89. We determined that they did not. See id., ¶¶19-23. That
aspect of our decision was not appealed and was therefore not addressed by our supreme court on
review. See Burbank Grease Servs., LLC v. Sokolowski, 2006 WI 103, ¶16, 294 Wis. 2d 274,
717 N.W.2d 781.
13
According to Molander’s trial testimony, used cooking oil is referred to as “yellow
grease or yellow oil in the industry.”

11
No. 2019AP166

for chain restaurants or industrial clients while Myers’ list had detailed
information on both of those customer groups.”

¶29 That argument rests on a mischaracterization of the lists at issue in
Burbank Grease. Sanimax is correct that one of the hard-copy lists at issue in that
case did not contain pricing information on “chain restaurants and large industrial
customers.” See Burbank Grease, 278 Wis. 2d 698, ¶5. Still, a separate
spreadsheet did contain pricing information on industrial clients, and another
spreadsheet showed “the amount of collections and revenues per customer.” Id.
Moreover, Sanimax fails to adequately explain why the distinction it attempts to
draw between the lists at issue in Burbank Grease and the list in this case renders
Burbank Grease’s holding inapplicable here. See id., ¶¶22-23. We need not, and
do not, address this undeveloped argument. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627,
646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

¶30 Second, Sanimax argues that

[a]lthough Sanimax starts most of its pricing using the
market-rate baseline set by the Jacobsen yellow grease
market in Chicago, Sanimax employs a number of pricing
tiers tailored to different categories of [used cooking oil]
producers. “Tier 1” customers—largely chain restaurants
and institutional customers—produce higher volumes of
[used cooking oil] and receive comparatively higher pay
than “Tier 3” customers, which are largely comprised of
“mom and pop” shops that produce lower volumes of [used
cooking oil] and receive less pay for their production.

Sanimax therefore argues its pricing is nonstandard and “not solely based on the
market.”

¶31 We fail to perceive how this argument distinguishes this case from
Burbank Grease, wherein we referred to the undisputed fact that it was standard

12
No. 2019AP166

practice in the grease collection industry to place customers into different “price
groups.” Burbank Grease, 278 Wis. 2d 698, ¶19. Stated differently, we perceive
no meaningful distinction between calling a pricing level a “tier” or a “group.”

¶32 Third, Sanimax argues that it “cannot and should not be held to the
sins of its predecessors” (i.e., Burbank Grease). Although we agree with this
sentiment in the abstract, Sanimax’s argument is misplaced. Our conclusion that
Sanimax’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim was objectively specious does
not concern the actions of Sanimax’s predecessor; instead, it concerns Sanimax’s
failure to recognize the fact that we have previously held customer lists in
Burbank Grease—indistinguishable from the one at issue in this case—did not
constitute a trade secret.14

¶33 Turning to the circuit court’s factual finding that Sanimax pursued
its misappropriation of trade secrets claim with subjective bad faith, we conclude
that finding was not clearly erroneous. The court provided the following
explanation for its decision:

[A]fter hearing the whole trial … when you look at [the
case] in light of the fact that Burbank [Grease] had been
decided in 2005; [counsel for Blue Honey] brought [that
case] up and put [Sanimax] on notice…. All we have is a
company that’s pretty ticked off at somebody who was a
very good employee at one time leaving and hurting their
share in the market, and I think it was basically retribution;
and they were ticked, and they figured maybe they could
drive the little guy out of business because [Blue Honey
wasn’t] going to be able to defend against the claim
because it’s very difficult to do all those discoveries, as you

14
Indeed, Sanimax did not even mention our decision in Burbank Grease in its brief-in-
chief. Instead, and despite the fact that the circuit court explicitly cited that case as the only
Wisconsin case “directly on point” at the hearing on Blue Honey’s motion for attorney’s fees
under WIS. STAT. § 134.90(4)(c), Sanimax waited until its reply brief to discuss the case.

13
No. 2019AP166

know, to go through all the litigation. It becomes very
costly just to try those issues. …

[M]ere supposition that [Myers] maybe took a list is not
sufficient under the case law or the statutes because,
number one, I don’t believe that [the customer list] was a
trade secret, and, number two, there was no indication that
[Myers] actually did anything of the sort. There was not
one piece of information other than they assumed that
maybe he did.

¶34 The record on appeal provides ample support for the circuit court’s
finding that Sanimax’s purpose in pursing its bad faith claim “was basically
retribution.” As indicated, Blue Honey put Sanimax on notice as early as
September 2015 that, under Burbank Grease, the facts alleged by Sanimax did not
state a viable misappropriation of trade secrets claim. Nonetheless, Sanimax
continued to pursue its claim through trial, despite the fact that Sanimax
undisputedly never produced any proof that Myers had, in fact, taken any list
when he left Sanimax for Blue Honey.

¶35 Further, the record shows that Myers was a top salesperson for
Sanimax, the company that commanded the lion’s share of the used cooking oil
market in Wisconsin. Then, after he left Sanimax to a work for its much smaller
competitor, he was successful enough at persuading previous customers to switch
their accounts that Sanimax management directed its sales representatives to
impugn his character to former clients. These facts, taken together, support the
court’s inference that Sanimax’s subjective intent in pursuing its claim was not to
actually succeed on its merits; but rather to use its lawsuit to exact retribution on
Myers and to cause his new, smaller employer financial pain.

¶36 On appeal, Sanimax acknowledges that it never produced any “direct
evidence” that Myers had taken a customer list. Still, it argues that “the

14
No. 2019AP166

circumstances of Myers’ actions leading up to his resignation and the immediate
impact upon his beginning with Blue Honey supported the inference that [Myers]
had taken the list and used it to his advantage with Blue Honey.” Consequently,
Sanimax reasons it was justified in pursuing its claim.

¶37 We are not persuaded by Sanimax’s argument for two reasons. First,
even if Sanimax’s initial suppositions about the circumstances surrounding Myers’
departure from its employ supported a reasonable inference that Myers had taken a
customer list, none of the discovery in this well-litigated case uncovered facts
corroborating that inference. Thus, Sanimax’s decision to continue to maintain the
trade secrets claim, despite this lack of evidence, supports the circuit court’s
finding of subjective intent.

¶38 Second, merely citing to circumstances which could have supported
an alternative inference regarding Sanimax’s subjective intent does not show that
the circuit court’s finding in this regard was clearly erroneous. “When evidence
supports the drawing of either of two conflicting but reasonable inferences, the
trial court, and not this court, must decide which inference to draw.” Plesko v.
Figgie Int’l, 190 Wis. 2d 764, 776, 528 N.W.2d 446 (Ct. App. 1994). In all, we
conclude the circuit court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to Blue Honey
under WIS. STAT. § 134.90(4)(c).15

15
In a single paragraph at the conclusion of its response brief, Blue Honey asserts,
without providing citation to any legal authority, that “attorneys fees ought to be allowed for
defending this issue on appeal.” We decline to consider this undeveloped and unsupported
argument. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

15
No. 2019AP166

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

16