Case Title: Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. v. Randy J. Marquardt

Citation: 2007 WI 62

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 62 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP189 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. and Keith 
Dippel, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Randy J. Marquardt, Dale M. Marquardt, Bradley 
L. Engnath, Jeffrey P. Sampson and Roofing 
Design & Solutions, Inc., 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
Steven W. Schoen and John G. Dorrer, 
          Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2007 WI 19 
Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 726 N.W.2d 898 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 24, 2007 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2007 WI 62
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP189  
(L.C. No. 
2003CV1475) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. and Keith 
Dippel, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Randy J. Marquardt, Dale M. Marquardt, Bradley 
L. Engnath, Jeffrey P. Sampson and Roofing 
Design & Solutions, Inc., 
 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
 
Steven W. Schoen and John G. Dorrer, 
 
          Defendants. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 24, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. and 
Keith Dippel (collectively, Industrial Roofing) move the court 
to reconsider its opinion in  Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. 
v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 726 N.W.2d 898, on 
the grounds that the court based its decision on significant 
factual errors and omissions, and that such errors and omissions 
No. 
2005AP189   
 
2 
 
led to an inequitable ruling, not supported by a majority of 
justices on this court.  
¶2 
We conclude that the grounds for reconsideration have 
not been met. 
¶3 
However, to clarify the Industrial Roofing Services 
opinion, ¶5, footnote 2 is changed to read as follows: 
This review pertains only to the five Marquardt 
defendants. A different group, the "Clark" defendants, 
had their complaint dismissed for essentially the same 
reasons as the Marquardt defendants, but under a 
separate order.  The parties agreed that the January 
12, 2005 dismissal order was not a final order as to 
the Clark defendants because the Clark defendants had 
counterclaims 
pending 
in 
the 
circuit 
court.  
Industrial filed a petition for leave to appeal from 
the non-final order, and the court of appeals denied 
that motion.  Thus, the Clark defendants are not party 
to this 
review. The complaint raises additional 
allegations against the Clark defendants, including 
breach of express employment contracts and breach of 
fiduciary duty. The complaints against other of the 
original 12 defendants have also been dismissed, not 
appealed, and are not before the court for review. 
¶4 
Additionally, 
¶36, 
footnote 
5 
is 
changed 
for 
clarification to read as follows: 
A similar order was entered with respect to the 
Clark defendants, for whom Industrial was to pay 
$16,077.50 in attorney's fees.   
¶5 
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied, 
without costs.   
No. 
2005AP189   
 
 
 
1