Opinion ID: 6317039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reconsideration

Text: ¶13 In our first review of the merits of a circuit court's reconsideration decision, we agree with the approach developed by the court of appeals. As that court has explained, a circuit court possesses inherent discretion to entertain motions to reconsider nonfinal pre-trial rulings.7 See, e.g., Fritsche v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 171 Wis. 2d 280, 294-95, 491 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1992). To succeed, a reconsideration movant must either present newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. Koepsell's Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell's Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd., 2004 WI App 129, ¶44, 275 Wis. 2d 397, 685 N.W.2d 853 (citing Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)). ¶14 Newly discovered evidence is not new evidence that could have been introduced at the original summary judgment phase. Id., ¶46. Similarly, a manifest error must be more When Bauer moved for reconsideration, the summary-judgment 7 ruling was not final as it lacked the required THIS JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPEAL statement. See Wambolt v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WI 35, ¶44, 299 Wis. 2d 723, 728 N.W.2d 670. 7 No. 2019AP2090 than disappointment or umbrage with the ruling; it requires a heightened showing of wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent. Id., ¶44 (quoting Oto, 224 F.3d at 606). Simply stated, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for making new arguments or submitting new evidentiary materials [that could have been submitted earlier] after the court has decided a motion for summary judgment. Lynch v. Crossroads Counseling Ctr., Inc., 2004 WI App 114, ¶23, 275 Wis. 2d 171, 684 N.W.2d 141. ¶15 Yet Bauer's reconsideration motion did just that, according to the circuit court. Her motion raised three previously unalleged grounds. Two grounds were new constitutional claims. The third ground was a claimed factual dispute over WEC's continuous use of the gas line based on her re-review of the service records and the alleged newly discovered evidence——two photos of uncovered utility lines at two different locations on her property. The circuit court denied reconsideration, reasoning that:  No manifest error existed as to the constitutional claims because Bauer had an imperfect-title remedy and lacked standing to raise a taking claim as the prescriptive right vested before she owned the property;  Photos of additional pipe beneath the Bauer property were not newly discovered because the service records in the original summary-judgment record had always indicated that new piping was spliced into the original line to repair it, leaving the inactive pipe in the ground; and 8 No. 2019AP2090  Even if they were newly discovered, the dispute they raised was immaterial as no evidence suggested that the additional piping was anything more than reasonable maintenance of a single gas line permitted under the original 1980 grant of permission. ¶16 We see no error in the circuit court's rationale that would justify reversal. Applying the law set forth above to the relevant facts before it, the circuit court reasonably concluded that Bauer lacked necessary factual predicates on both constitutional claims and offered no newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration. See Borreson, 292 Wis. 2d 231, ¶6. Because the circuit court permissibly declined to accept additional evidence and legal arguments via Bauer's reconsideration motion, we disregard that material in reviewing the underlying summary-judgment decision.8 See Clark v. League of Wis. Muns. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WI App 21, ¶19 n.8, 397 Wis. 2d 220, 959 N.W.2d 648.