COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

June 13, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff

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. 2022AP1456 Cir. Ct. No. 2020SC17492

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

JEFFREY L. KOENIG,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

STEVEN B. KOENIG, M.D.,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

AUDI NORTH SHORE,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

LINDSEY CANONIE GRADY, Judge. Affirmed. 
No. 2022AP1456

2

¶1 BRASH, C.J.1 Jeffrey L. Koenig, pro se, appeals from the court’s 

granting of a motion for summary judgment dismissing his claims against Audi 

North Shore (Audi) and granting Audi’s counterclaims. Audi has also filed a 

motion for costs on the grounds that Koenig filed a frivolous appeal. Upon 

review, we affirm the circuit court and deny Audi’s motion for costs.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On August 18, 2020, Jeffrey Koenig and Steven Koenig2filed a 

small claims action against Audi seeking recovery of money spent on vehicle 

repairs. The Koenigs alleged that Audi was negligent in its repair of their vehicle, 

resulting in multiple service visits. As relevant to this appeal, Audi filed a motion 

to dismiss as well as counterclaims. The counterclaims alleged that the Koenigs 

failed to pay for certain repairs and failed to pay vehicle storage fees. The small 

claims court granted a directed verdict to Audi, and the Koenigs requested judicial 

review by the circuit court. 

¶3 The matter proceeded to the circuit court where Audi filed two 

summary judgment motions—one to dismiss the Koenigs’ complaint and one for 

judgment on its counterclaims. The Koenigs opposed the motions and filed other 

documents with the circuit court alleging that at least one of Audi’s affidavits was 

submitted in bad faith. Steven also wrote a letter to the circuit court stating that 

while the matter was still in small claims court, Audi’s counsel threatened to 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2021-22). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.

2

 Only Jeffrey appeals the circuit court’s summary judgment. We refer to Jeffrey and 

Steven by their first names to avoid confusion. 
No. 2022AP1456

3

“expose my financial records and ruin my credit rating” if Koenig continued with 

litigation. 

¶4 The circuit court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions 

and granted summary judgment in favor of Audi on both motions. This appeal 

follows.

DISCUSSION

¶5 “[A] circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment is a 

question of law that th[is] court reviews independently.” Strasser v. Transtech 

Mobile Fleet Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 87, ¶28, 236 Wis. 2d 435, 613 N.W.2d 142. 

We conduct our review using the same methodology as utilized by the circuit 

court. See id., ¶30. Summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See WIS. STAT.

§ 802.08(2). A court considering a motion for summary judgment construes all 

facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. See Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129, ¶4, 

285 Wis. 2d 236, 701 N.W.2d 523.

¶6 We note first that Jeffrey’s brief is rife with factual allegations and 

alleged factual disputes; however, he provides no evidentiary or legal support for 

any of his allegations. Indeed, Jeffrey does not even provide the circuit court’s 

reasoning for granting Audi’s motions. The order granting the motions states that 

the circuit court granted Audi’s motions based on “the reasons stated on the 

record, affidavits on file and the briefs on file herein.” The record on appeal 

contains no transcript of the summary judgment hearing, provides this court with 
No. 2022AP1456

4

no reason to assume that any of the affidavits the circuit court relied upon were 

false, and provides no evidentiary support of Audi’s counsel’s alleged threat. The 

appellant must ensure a complete record related to the issues on appeal. Missing 

material is assumed to support the circuit court’s decision. Fiumefreddo v. 

McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993).

¶7 As to Audi’s motion for costs based on a frivolous appeal, we note 

that this court determines, as a matter of law, whether an appeal is frivolous. See

Tennyson v. School Dist. of Menomonie Area, 2000 WI App 21, ¶33, 232 Wis. 

2d 267, 606 N.W.2d 594. All doubts about whether an appeal is frivolous must be 

resolved in favor of the appellant. See Rabideau v. City of Racine, 2001 WI 57, 

¶46, 243 Wis. 2d 486, 627 N.W.2d 795. Audi’s motion is based on its contention 

that Jeffrey’s appeal has no basis in law or fact and that neither of Jeffrey’s 

allegations pertaining to a false affidavit and a threat by counsel were raised in the 

circuit court. While we agree that Jeffrey’s brief-in-chief is full of factual 

allegations and devoid of any legal support for his claims, we disagree with Audi 

that Jeffrey failed to raise his other claims in the circuit court. Although not raised 

as counterclaims, Jeffrey did allege that at least one of Audi’s affidavits was filed 

in bad faith in a circuit court filing and Steven submitted a letter to the circuit 

court stating that Audi’s counsel threatened him. We decline to grant Audi’s 

motion for costs. 

¶8 For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court. 

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.