A recent decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by two individuals who alleged that a medical services provider engaged in illegal lending practices. The case highlights ongoing questions about consumer protections and the responsibilities of businesses that facilitate third-party financing for their customers.
Roger Brazeau and Tina Brazeau filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, District II, challenging an order from Brown County Circuit Court Judge Donald R. Zuidmulder that dismissed their twice-amended class action complaint against NuMale Wisconsin GB, S.C. The appellate decision was dated March 24, 2026, under case number 2024AP2147.
According to court documents, the dispute began when the Brazeaus claimed that NuMale arranged or facilitated third-party financing for Roger Brazeau and other potential class members to obtain medical services without providing disclosures required by Wisconsin Statute section 422.505. This statute outlines obligations for credit services organizations to inform consumers about certain aspects of credit arrangements. The plaintiffs argued that NuMale’s actions violated these statutory requirements.
NuMale responded by moving to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing it was not a credit services organization as defined by Wisconsin Statute section 422.501(2)(a), and therefore not subject to section 422.505. After both parties submitted briefs on this issue, the circuit court held a hearing where it indicated an inclination to grant NuMale’s motion but ultimately allowed the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend their complaint.
The Brazeaus then filed a second amended complaint which repeated their original claim regarding violations of section 422.505 and added a new breach of contract claim. Instead of answering this new complaint, NuMale again moved to dismiss on two grounds: first, that the amended filing exceeded what the court had permitted; second, that previous arguments supporting dismissal still applied.
In its written order—the subject of this appeal—the circuit court dismissed the statutory claim under section 422.505 and removed class certification from the breach of contract claim. While referencing both sections 802.06(2)(b) (which allows certain defenses before a formal answer is filed) and 802.08 (the summary judgment statute), the court did not specify its reasoning in detail either orally or in writing.
Subsequently, at the parties’ request, the remaining individual breach of contract claim was dismissed without prejudice—meaning it could potentially be refiled—making prior orders final for purposes of appeal.
On appeal, Roger and Tina Brazeau argued that it was improper for the circuit court to grant summary judgment before NuMale had answered their second amended complaint. They contended that the second amended complaint replaced the first, required a new response, and that arguments from previous motions could not be carried over. The appellate court disagreed with these procedural objections.
The appeals court agreed that the second amended complaint superseded the first but noted that NuMale’s obligation to answer was paused when it filed a motion to dismiss under section 802.06(2)(a)6. and (b). This, the court explained, meant NuMale was not required to file an answer while its motion was pending. The court also found no issue with NuMale incorporating prior arguments by reference into its new motion, stating such practices are common in legal proceedings.
Importantly, the appellate decision observed that the Brazeaus did not challenge the merits of the dismissal itself or argue how NuMale qualified as a credit services organization under state law in their appeal briefs. As a result, the appeals court declined to review whether their allegations were sufficient to support a claim under section 422.505.
The appellate panel also clarified that although the circuit court referenced summary judgment procedures, what actually occurred was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim—a different legal standard. The reference to summary judgment was described as a misstatement rather than an error affecting the outcome.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed that it was procedurally proper for the circuit court to decide NuMale’s motion to dismiss before requiring an answer to be filed. The order of dismissal stands as issued by Judge Donald R. Zuidmulder in Brown County Circuit Court. Attorneys’ names were not specified in the decision notice. The case is identified as No. 2024AP2147.
Source: 2024AP2147_Brazeau_v_NuMale_Wisconsin_GB_SC_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
