Triplett DeAngelo v. Maria Butler

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.
June 24, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen 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. 2024AP445 Cir. Ct. No. 2023SC2958

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

TRIPLETT DEANGELO,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

MARIA BUTLER,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
REYNA I. MORALES, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 WHITE, C.J.1 Triplett DeAngelo2 filed a small claims action
against Maria Butler in January 2023, requesting $10,000 for his “wrongful

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
No. 2024AP445

termination” from employment. The case was twice dismissed without prejudice
due to DeAngelo’s repeated failures to appear at scheduled hearings. DeAngelo
moved each time to reopen the case, but the second motion to reopen was denied
by the circuit court after DeAngelo failed to show good cause for his repeated
absences. DeAngelo now appeals.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On January 31, 2023, DeAngelo filed a small claims action seeking
$10,000 in damages against Maria Butler. Butler is a Senior Recruiter at
Manpower, a temporary staffing agency, and she worked to administer
DeAngelo’s assignment as a dishwasher at Ikea. The only statement DeAngelo
made in support of his claim against Butler was “[w]rongful termination, advance
harassments … Edna—lead at Ikea … Donnel—Ikea.” The complaint did not
state any claim against Butler, nor did it name Ikea, Manpower, “Edna,” or
“Donnel” as defendants.

¶3 At the return hearing date, both parties appeared, but the hearing was
adjourned. At the following hearing on April 3, 2023, DeAngelo failed to appear
and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

¶4 DeAngelo filed a motion to reopen the case on April 21, 2023. As a
basis for his motion, DeAngelo wrote: “Receptionist Renaee in small claims
mislead me with false information by phone call, say ‘April 13th is your date
March 30th is dialed.’” DeAngelo did not clarify who “Renaee” was, nor when

2
DeAngelo is identified as “Triplett DeAngelo” in the court record; however, the
March 8, 2024 court transcript would suggest that his actual name is “DeAngelo Triplett.” We
refer to him as “Triplett DeAngelo” as that is how he is denominated in the case caption.

2
No. 2024AP445

this alleged phone call occurred. A court commissioner reviewed the motion to
reopen and scheduled the matter for a hearing.

¶5 On June 27, 2023, DeAngelo filed an amended summons and
complaint. The complaint again named only Butler as a defendant and reiterated
the same allegations as the original complaint.

¶6 At the motion hearing on October 19, 2023, DeAngelo again failed
to appear. The circuit court dismissed the case again without prejudice. On
November 2, 2023, DeAngelo filed another motion to reopen. As a basis for his
motion, DeAngelo stated that he failed to appear at the October 19 hearing due to
“[w]ork days long, liberty on basic necessities are timed eat, shower.” The second
motion to reopen was reviewed by a court commissioner and set for another
hearing.

¶7 At the motion hearing on March 8, 2024, the circuit court asked
DeAngelo to explain why he had missed the April 3, 2023 hearing, to which
DeAngelo stated, “my itinerary two days prior to this court date, I was downstairs
in the room searching for information on case number 2023-SC-002955, and with
that procedure error, I happened to miss checking on this court date, and it left
me—it left me here for today.” DeAngelo did not dispute opposing counsel’s
assertion that he had previously admitted to not writing down the court dates. The
court also took note of the fact that there had been improper service of the
amended summons and complaint. Ultimately, the court found that DeAngelo had
failed to show good cause for his repeated absences and denied the motion to
reopen. DeAngelo now appeals.

3
No. 2024AP445

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8 Under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(a), a court may grant a motion to
reopen based on a party’s “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect[.]” In determining whether there has been an honest mistake or excusable
neglect, “the basic question is whether the … party’s conduct was excusable under
the circumstances, ‘since nearly any pattern of conduct … could alternatively be
cast as due to mistake or inadvertence or neglect.’” Martin v. Griffin, 117
Wis. 2d 438, 443, 344 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1984) (quoting Hansher v.
Kaishian, 79 Wis. 2d 374, 391, 255 N.W.2d 564 (1977)).

¶9 The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an erroneous
exercise of discretion. Kovalic v. DEC Int’l, 186 Wis. 2d 162, 166, 519 N.W.2d
351 (Ct. App. 1994). Reviewing courts “generally look for reasons to sustain a
circuit court’s discretionary determination.” Miller v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2010 WI
75, ¶30, 326 Wis. 2d 640, 785 N.W.2d 493. The denial of a motion to reopen
must be affirmed if the denial “was within the wide band of decisions that a
reasonable [circuit] court could have made,” Kovalic, 186 Wis. 2d at 166, and the
record on appeal “reflect[s] the circuit court’s reasoned application of the
appropriate legal standard to the relevant facts of the case.” Franke v. Franke,
2004 WI 8, ¶54, 268 Wis. 2d 360, 674 N.W.2d 832 (citation omitted). “[I]t is the
burden of the appellant to demonstrate that the [circuit] court erred[.]” Seltrecht v.
Bremer, 214 Wis. 2d 110, 125, 571 N.W.2d 686 (Ct. App. 1997).

DISCUSSION

¶10 DeAngelo’s briefs give us little to consider. DeAngelo appears to be
making a complaint regarding his treatment as an employee with Ikea, relating the
procedural history of the case and stating, “YOUR HONOR ONE CALL TO

4
No. 2024AP445

RECEPTIONIST IN SMALL CLAIM WITH NOTE FOR REMINDER AND
THE WRONG DATE GIVEN. GOOD FAITH AND 802.04(1) HOLDS TRUE.
MISSED OPPORTUNITY[.] THE FOLLOWING TIME I HAD THE WROG
[sic] TIME ARRIVED LATE.”

¶11 At no point in his briefs does DeAngelo explain why he has filed a
claim against Butler, nor does he make any argument as to how the circuit court
erred when it found that he had failed to show good cause for missing his
scheduled hearings.

¶12 In opposition, Butler asserts that DeAngelo has failed to show good
cause for his failure to appear at the hearings. She points out that DeAngelo has
not disputed that he failed to write down his court dates and that he has failed to
provide any evidence or factual details to support his claim that “Receptionist
Rena[e]e in small claims” gave him “false information.” Butler argues that
DeAngelo’s excuses—that he was busy “work[ing],” “eat[ing],” and
“shower[ing]”—are insufficient to constitute mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect. She insists that this shows merely “plain carelessness and
repeated failures to follow instructions.”

¶13 DeAngelo has clearly failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that
the circuit court’s discretionary decision was in error. He instead spends much of
his time discussing his experience as an employee at Ikea and simply restating the
excuses he made before the circuit court. This court may decline to address issues
which are inadequately briefed. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d
633 (Ct. App. 1992). Further, arguments unsupported by references to legal
authority will not be considered. Id. Indeed, a brief “so lacking in organization

5
No. 2024AP445

and substance that for us to decide [the] issues, we would first have to develop
them,” is inadequate, as we “cannot serve as both advocate and judge.” Id. at 647.

¶14 In addition, a “party must do more than simply toss a bunch of
concepts into the air with the hope that either the … court or the opposing party
will arrange them into viable and fact-supported legal theories.” State v. Jackson,
229 Wis. 2d 328, 337, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999). Here, this court would
essentially have to develop DeAngelo’s arguments for him in order to engage in
any sort of reasoned analysis. While pro se litigants are usually granted a “degree
of leeway,” this court does not “impute to pro se litigants the best argument they
could have, but did not, make.” State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110,
¶25, 389 Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587. DeAngelo’s briefs do not cite to any
relevant legal authority, nor do they make any argument that reasonably supports
his position.

¶15 Even if this court were to disregard the fact that DeAngelo’s briefs
are wholly inadequate, there does not appear to be any erroneous exercise of
discretion on the part of the circuit court—nor does DeAngelo point to any such
erroneous exercise. At the hearing on March 8, 2024, the circuit court considered
whether or not there was good cause to grant the motion to reopen. When
DeAngelo was given an opportunity to explain why he had failed to appear at two
separate hearings, he stated, “my itinerary two days prior to this court date, I was
downstairs in the room searching for information … and with that procedure error,
I happened to miss checking on this court date[.]” In response, the court pointed
out that DeAngelo had been sent instructions on how to appear at the hearings, and
yet had missed them anyways. Opposing counsel also pointed out—and
DeAngelo did not dispute—that “he didn’t bother to write down the dates.”
Ultimately, based “on the history of the case” and “all the other missed court

6
No. 2024AP445

appearances,” the court found that DeAngelo had failed to demonstrate good cause
that would warrant reopening the case.

¶16 It cannot be said that this was an erroneous exercise of discretion on
the part of the circuit court. The court began with the first prong of the test for a
motion to reopen—whether there was good cause—and found that DeAngelo’s
excuses were insufficient and that he could not even satisfy that first prong.
Indeed, DeAngelo’s excuses for missing the hearings appeared to simply be
multiple different examples of carelessness and inattentiveness. He in no way
demonstrated that his mistakes were excusable under the circumstances, see
Martin, 117 Wis. 2d at 443, and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate in such
instances that the court erred. Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376
Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 381 (citing Seltrecht, 214 Wis. 2d at 125).

CONCLUSION

¶17 Based on the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that DeAngelo
has not demonstrated that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

7
No. 2024AP445