Arajuo v. Wedelstadt, No. 23-C-1190 (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
William C. Griesbach (J.) (unanimous Court)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Arajuo v. WedelstadtUnited States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. | January 22, 2025 | Slip Copy | 2025 WL 263529Document Detailsstandard Citation:Arajuo v. Wedelstadt, No. 23-C-1190, 2025 WL 263529 (E.D. Wis. Jan.22, 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 263529Search DetailsSearch Query:Arajuo v. WedelstadtJurisdiction:WisconsinDelivery DetailsDate:May 21, 2025 at 4:43 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)DECISION ANDORDER DENYINGMOTION FORSUMMARYJUDGMENT(p.1)All Citations (p.2)
Arajuo v. Wedelstadt, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 263529Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.Anderson ARAJUO, Plaintiff,v.Michael T. WEDELSTADT, GraveyardAuto LLC, AutoPro Express Inc., andXYZ Insurance Company, Defendants.Case No. 23-C-1190|Signed January 22, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsTerrence M. Polich, Andrew J. Hysell, Lawton & CatesSC, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.Franz J. Maurer, Law Firm of Franz J. Maurer,Appleton, WI, for Defendants.DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTWilliam C. Griesbach, United States District Judge*1 Plaintiff Anderson Arajuo brought this actionagainst Defendants Michael T. Wedelstadt, GraveyardAuto LLC, AutoPro Express Inc., and XYZ InsuranceCompany, asserting claims of property loss throughfraudulent misrepresentation under Wis. Stat. §§943.203 and 895.446 and unfair trade practice underWis. Stat. § 100.18. Arajuo alleges that he owned anauto transport business located in White Plains, NewYork, and saw an advertisement that listed a used 1998Peterbilt 379 and a used 2005 Cottrell car haulingtrailer listed for sale by Defendants. Arajuo assertsDefendants provided him with a service invoice fromMichigan CAT, a corporation that services enginesused to power trucks and generators, that listeda complete engine overhaul on the truck. Arajuopurchased the truck and trailer based on the factthat Michigan CAT performed the complete engineoverhaul. After purchasing the truck and trailer, Arajuocontacted Michigan CAT inquiring about the engineoverhaul, and Michigan CAT stated that the invoicewas for an engine overhaul made to a differenttruck with a different VPN. Arajuo claims Defendantsaltered the invoice to create the belief that the truck wasworth more than it was and induce Arajuo to purchasethe truck and that he has suffered economic losses asa result.On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed a motion forsummary judgment, arguing that the complaint fails toname a real party in interest as required by Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 17. Summary judgment is properwhere there is no genuine dispute as to any materialfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matterof law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Before turning to themerits of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,the court will address the conduct of Defendants’counsel in this case. Counsel's brief in support of themotion for summary judgment includes citations tonon-existent cases. Counsel admits that he utilized a“new legal research medium” that he had not usedbefore. Defs.’ Reply Br. at 2, Dkt. No. 35. He assertsthat “[e]ither this medium was corrupt, or the site hadbeen otherwise compromised” and filed an amendedbrief that omits the non-existent cases. Id.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that,by presenting a submission to the court, an attorney“certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,information, and belief, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances ... the claims,defenses, and other legal contentions are warrantedby existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument forextending, modifying, or reversing existing law or forestablishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). “Atthe very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 requirethat attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existenceand validity of, the legal authorities on which theyrely.” Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024).To the extent counsel used an artificial intelligencetool (e.g., ChatGPT) that generated fake case citations,this is unacceptable. Counsel is warned that any futurefilings with citations to nonexistent cases may resultin sanctions. The court now turns to the merits ofDefendants’ motion.*2 Defendants argue that the case must be dismissedbecause Arajuo is not the real party in interestand, thus, is not entitled to maintain this action.They contend that the commercial vehicle was sold,
Arajuo v. Wedelstadt, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2transferred, and titled to Arajuo's corporation, Ben'sHauling Inc., not Arajuo. Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 17 requires that an action “be prosecuted inthe name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.17(a)(1). Rule 17 provides, however, that “[t]he courtmay not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute inthe name of the real party in interest until, after anobjection, a reasonable time has been allowed for thereal party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted intothe action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3). “After ratification,joinder, or substitution, the action proceeds as if ithad been originally commenced by the real party ininterest.” Id.Arajuo asserts that he is a real party in interest becausehe is the sole, exclusive owner of Ben's Hauling Inc.and that he titled the truck in the name of Ben's HaulingInc. as required by his insurance company. He contendsthat he and Ben's Hauling Inc. operate interchangeablyand are effectively “one and the same,” and that allprofits and losses associated with Ben's Hauling Inc.are profits and losses exclusively borne by Arajuo.Pl.’s Br. at 6, Dkt. No. 32. Even if Arajuo is not thereal party in interest in this suit, Ben's Hauling Inc.has ratified this suit. Araujo, as the sole owner ofBen's Hauling Inc., submitted an affidavit, which wasnot contradicted, ratifying Arajuo's lawsuit on behalfof Ben's Hauling Inc. This affidavit is sufficient toeffect ratification. See CWCapital Asset Mgmt., LLC v.Chi. Props., LLC, 610 F.3d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 2010).For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for summaryjudgment is denied.One final matter warrants comment. Arajuo filed thisaction in this court based upon diversity of citizenshippursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He alleges that heis an adult citizen and resident of the State of NewYork; Ben's Hauling Inc. is registered and incorporatedin New York; Wedelstadt is an adult citizen andresident of the State of Wisconsin; Graveyard AutoLLC is a limited liability corporation registered inWisconsin with a principal place of business inWisconsin; and AutoPro Express Inc. is a businesscorporation registered in Wisconsin with a principalplace of business in Wisconsin. The court is unableto determine whether or not complete diversity exists.LLCs are citizens of the states in which their membersare citizens. See Belleville Catering Co. v ChampaignMarket Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003).Arajuo has failed to advise the court of the states ofcitizenship of Graveyard Auto LLC's members. Arajuomust file a supplemental jurisdictional statement thatindicates the states of citizenship of Graveyard AutoLLC's members within 30 days of the date of this order.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31) isDENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arajuo must filea supplemental jurisdictional statement that indicatesthe states of citizenship of Graveyard Auto LLC'smembers within 30 days of the date of this order.Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this actionfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 263529End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access