Title: Hamburg v. Heilbrun

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Hamburg v. Heilbrun1995 WY 31891 P.2d 85Case Number: 94-78Decided: 03/08/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Al 
HAMBURG, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

Denise HEILBRUN and The Torrington Telegram, 
Appellees (Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Goshen County, Keith G. Kautz, J.

Al Hamburg, pro se.

Michael E. Warren, 
Torrington, for appellee 
Heilbrun.

Eric M. Alden, Wheatland, for appellee The Torrington 
Telegram.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      In this case 
which is presented by Al Hamburg (Hamburg), acting as his own attorney, the 
primary issue is the failure of Hamburg to present cogent argument and pertinent 
authority in his brief as well as his failure to comply with WYO.R.APP.P. 7.01. 
The issue asserted by Hamburg is that he had a right to participate as a party 
in a case presented by his sons in the trial court. There are incidental issues 
relating to an attempt to exercise peremptory challenge of the judge and a 
motion to stay proceedings, but the consideration of those issues depends upon 
the resolution of the primary issue. For the failure to comply with our rules 
and to present cogent argument and pertinent authority, we affirm the Order 
Dismissing Claims of Al Hamburg and Denying Motion to Amend Complaint. That 
resolution avoids the necessity of considering any collateral issues. We also 
assess a reasonable fee for counsel for the appellees pursuant to WYO.R.APP.P. 
10.05.

[¶2]      The issues as 
articulated by Hamburg are:

1. Did the court have legal right to dismiss Al 
Hamburg as a plaintiff.

2. Did the court commit prejudicial error in removing 
Al Hamburg as a plaintiff. 

3. Did plaintiffs have cause to request a change of 
judge under W.R.C.P. 40.1(b)(2).

4. Is the Order Denying Change of Judge 
appealable.

5. Motion to Stay Proceedings in district court 
pending appeal.

[¶3]      In the Brief of 
Appellee Denise Heilbrun, the issues are articulated in this 
way:

1. Did the trial court improperly deny Plaintiff's 
Motion for a Change of Judge pursuant to W.R.C.P. 
40.1(b)(2)?

2. Did the trial court improperly dismiss Al Hamburg 
from the sexual harassment case he filed on behalf of his 
sons?

3. Did the trial court improperly deny Al Hamburg's 
Motion to Amend Complaint?

4. Should proceedings in the District Court be stayed 
during this appeal?

5. Should appellee be awarded costs and fees pursuant 
to W.R.A.P. Rule 10.05?

6. Should Appellant's appeal be dismissed for failing 
to comply with W.R.A.P. Rule 3.05(e)?

[¶4]      In its Brief of 
Appellee, The Torrington Telegram articulates these 
issues:

1. Whether the District Court Judge erroneously 
dismissed the Appellant?

2. Whether the District Court Judge erroneously 
dismissed the Appellant's amended complaint?

3. Whether the District Court Judge's decision not to 
disqualify himself for cause is an appealable order?

4. Whether the Appellee, Torrington Telegram, is 
entitled to costs and fees pursuant to W.R.A.P. Rule 
10.05?

[¶5]      Hamburg sought to 
be recognized as a plaintiff in an action filed by his two sons seeking recovery 
for sexual harassment of the sons by Denise Heilbrun (Heilbrun) and The 
Torrington Telegram (The Telegram). Heilbrun was an employee of The Telegram and 
was the individual who was charged with sexual harassment in the complaint of 
the sons.

[¶6]      For more than 
thirty-five years, this Court has summarily affirmed cases or issues in cases 
that are not presented with cogent argument or pertinent authority. E.g., Wilson 
v. State, 874 P.2d 215 (Wyo. 1994); Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703 (Wyo. 
1993); In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128 (Wyo. 1993); Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock 
Bd., 851 P.2d 769 (Wyo. 1993); E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. Barbe, 764 P.2d 274 
(Wyo. 1988); Kipp v. Brown, 750 P.2d 1338 (Wyo. 1988); Freeman v. Town of Lusk, 
717 P.2d 331 (Wyo. 1986); Skurdal v. State by and through Stone, 708 P.2d 1241 
(Wyo. 1985); and Sch. Dist. No. 9, Fremont County v. Dist. Boundary Bd. in and 
for Fremont County, 351 P.2d 106 (Wyo. 1960). This rule may make allowances for 
pro se litigants, but they are not excused from compliance. In accordance with 
the rule and because of the almost complete failure of Hamburg to comply with 
the provisions of WYO.R.APP.P. 7.01, we summarily affirm this case. The sanction 
of affirmance for failure to comply with our rules is specifically provided in 
WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03.

[¶7]      In any event, we 
are satisfied that Hamburg's effort to join in the action brought by his sons 
was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt on his part to be recognized as 
their attorney. From the presentation made in this case as well as a comparison 
of the case of Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967 (Wyo. 1995), we have been 
unable to discern any valid claim for relief on the part of Hamburg. No tort was 
committed that affected him, and he, in fact, had no basis for seeking relief 
from either The Telegram or Heilbrun. This is precisely why WYO. R.CIV.P. 
12(b)(6) justifies dismissal for failure to state a claim. Even analyzing the 
facts alleged as true, and viewing the allegations in the light most favorable 
to Hamburg (Carbon County Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Wyoming State Hosp., 680 P.2d 773 
(Wyo. 1984); McClellan v. Tottenhoff, 666 P.2d 408 (Wyo. 1983)), there is 
nothing set forth in the complaint that justifies any claim on Hamburg's part 
for which relief can be granted. The pleading totally fails to give fair notice 
to the defendants of Hamburg's claim (Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 
608 P.2d 1299 (Wyo. 1980)), and the dismissal was proper.

[¶8]      The district 
court exercised sound judgment with respect to what is right under the 
circumstances and without acting arbitrarily or capriciously. Rivermeadows, Inc. 
v. Zwaanshoek Holding and Financiering, B.V., 761 P.2d 662 (Wyo. 1988). That 
exercise of discretion by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal except 
in a rare case where there is a clear abuse of discretion. England v. Simmons, 
728 P.2d 1137 (Wyo. 1986).

[¶9]      We are satisfied 
that an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to 
WYO.R.CIV.P. 40.1(b)(3) is not an appealable order. Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991). While error in the ruling on the motion may be asserted in an 
appeal, any error with respect to that ruling is subsumed by our affirmance of 
the order of dismissal.

[¶10]   We are asked by the appellees to 
award attorney fees pursuant to WYO. R.APP.P. 10.05 because of the frivolous 
appeal. Hamburg has presented no cogent argument or pertinent authority in his 
brief that supports his contentions. From what was included in the Brief of 
Appellant, we are persuaded the appeal is frivolous. We normally do not award 
damages or attorney fees under WYO.R.APP.P. 10.05 when discretionary rulings of 
the trial court are presented. James S. Jackson Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 677 P.2d 835, 839 (Wyo. 1984) (quoting Bacon v. Carey Company, 669 P.2d 533, 536 (Wyo. 
1983)). In this instance, however, the situation was such that it would have 
been an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court not to grant the 
motions to dismiss under WYO.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6), and there was no premise 
presented from which Hamburg could justify an appeal. We certify there was no 
just cause for this appeal and, consequently, we award attorney fees under WYO. 
R.APP.P. 10.05 to The Torrington Telegram and to Denise Heilbrun. E.g., Phifer 
v. Phifer, 845 P.2d 384 (Wyo. 1993); Osborn v. Pine Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165 (Wyo. 1989). The appellees shall submit a statement of attorney fees to 
this Court and, upon review, an appropriate award of fees will be ordered by 
this Court.

[¶11]   The judgment of the trial court is 
affirmed and, since we find there was no reasonable cause for this appeal, we 
award an attorney fee to counsel for Denise Heilbrun and an attorney fee to 
counsel for The Torrington Telegram.