|
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
March 10, 2009
David
R. Schanker
Clerk of Court of Appeals
|
|
NOTICE
|
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
|
|
|
Appeal No.
|
|
|
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
|
IN COURT OF
APPEALS
|
|
|
DISTRICT I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra Murray,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Wilcox World Travel and Tours,
Defendant-Respondent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: WILLIAM
SOSNAY, Judge. Affirmed.
¶1 KESSLER, J. Sandra
Murray, pro se, appeals from an order
dismissing her small claims case against Wilcox World Travel and Tours (“Wilcox”), which
is also proceeding pro se. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In February 2000, Murray
traveled to Israel
as part of a church-sponsored tourist trip.
Wilcox was the travel company that ran the tour. Murray was
supposed to participate in a side trip to Jordan,
but she was denied access to Jordan
because she did not bring her passport with her. Since that time, Murray has filed three small claims cases in
an attempt to be compensated for missing the side trip.
¶3 First, in July 2000, she sued her tour roommate, Anne
Platt. The case was dismissed. When Murray
attempted to appeal the case over a year later, this court dismissed the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. See Murray
v. Platt, No. 2001AP2449, unpublished slip op. ¶6 (WI App Mar. 19,
2002).
¶4 Next, in January 2004, Murray
sued Wilcox in small claims court. See Murray v. Wilcox, No. 2004SC857
(Milwaukee County Cir. Ct). According to entries in the Wisconsin Circuit
Court Access (“CCAP”) system, the matter was heard before a court commissioner
on March 8, 2004. The case was dismissed
based on a finding that the complaint did not plead a cause of action. Murray
did not seek review in the circuit court and did not appeal to this court.
¶5 On May 1, 2008, Murray
filed the instant action against Wilcox, again seeking compensation for the
missed side trip. A hearing was
conducted before a court commissioner and the case was dismissed. Murray
sought review by the circuit court. The circuit
court dismissed the case. According to
the notes entered on CCAP, the basis for the dismissal was that “[t]his matter
has already been litigated in 04SC857.”
This appeal follows.
DISCUSSION
¶6 “Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘a final judgment is
conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters
which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former
proceedings.’” Barber v. Weber, 2006 WI
App 88, ¶20, 292 Wis.
2d 426, 715 N.W.2d 683 (citation omitted).
Although no transcript has been provided,
it is undisputed that the circuit court concluded that Murray’s claim was precluded because she
previously brought the same claim against Wilcox in Milwaukee County Circuit
Court Case No. 2004SC857. As noted, that
claim was dismissed and Murray
did not seek review of the dismissal.
¶7 Murray
offers no discussion of the prior case in her opening or reply briefs, and she
does not reply to Wilcox’s argument that her claim is precluded because she
brought the same claim before. Rather,
both of Murray’s briefs simply reiterate her
complaints about the missed trip to Jordan and assert that Wilcox
should compensate her. Murray has provided no basis for this court
to overturn the circuit court’s dismissal.
Therefore, we affirm. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.
2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not
address arguments that are inadequately developed); State v. Alexander, 2005
WI App 231, ¶15, 287 Wis. 2d 645, 706 N.W.2d 191 (“Arguments not refuted are
deemed admitted.”).
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.