Meyer v. Esseraidi

1

David Meyer, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tarik Esseraidi, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2023AP2190

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II

September 18, 2024

This opinion will not be published.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

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County: No 2023SC2762 MICHAEL P. MAXWELL, Judge. Affirmed.

LAZAR J. ^[1]

¶1 Tarik Esseraidi, pro se, appeals from an order denying his request for a de novo trial in a small claims action brought against him by David Meyer. The circuit court did not err in determining that Esseraidi's demand for trial after the court commissioner's decision in Meyer's favor was untimely. Therefore, this court affirms.

¶2 Meyer sued Esseraidi for $381.50 after Esseraidi allegedly bought electronics from Meyer at an estate sale and subsequently canceled payment. After a hearing on November 10, 2023, the court commissioner granted judgment in favor of Meyer and dismissed Esseraidi's counterclaim, issuing a written dismissal order reflecting that judgment the same day. Twenty-four days later- on December 4, 2023-Esseraidi filed a demand for trial. On the same day, the circuit court "denied as untimely" the demand for trial without a hearing. Later on December 4, Esseraidi filed his notice of appeal.

¶3 This is a case requiring interpretation and application of a statute, which this court reviews de novo. Eau Claire Cnty. Dep't Human Servs. v. S.E., 2020 WI.App. 39 ¶12, 392 Wis.2d 726, 946 N.W.2d 155, aff'd, 2021 WI 56, 397 Wis.2d 462, 960 N.W.2d 391. The procedure for small claims actions is governed by WIS. STAT. ch. 799. See WIS. STAT. § 799.01(1)(d). Pursuant to WIS STAT. § 799.207(2)(b), a party "may file a demand for trial within 10 days from the date of an oral decision or 15 days from the date of mailing of a written decision to prevent the entry of the judgment."

¶4 Esseraidi does not argue that the circuit court's interpretation or application of WIS. STAT. § 799.01(1)(d) is incorrect or that that court erred in concluding that his demand was untimely; he concedes in his brief that his request for trial was "untimely and in fact was requested after the deadline." He further acknowledges that he is "aware of [his] responsibility to figure the legal procedures and navigate the system for [his] case." Esseraidi's only argument in support of reversal is that "[t]he communication of [his] right to a de novo trial should have been more enhanced ...." Esseraidi does not develop this argument or support it with any legal authority. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered."). Moreover, as our supreme court has articulated, even a pro se litigant "must satisfy all procedural requirements" and "neither a trial court nor a reviewing court has a duty to walk pro se litigants through the procedural requirements." Waushara...