Gas Station Operators Accuse Competitor of Violating Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act

A group of gas station operators recently faced a legal setback in their class action lawsuit due to a technical error in naming the defendant. The plaintiffs, including College Avenue BP, Inc., Shreeji, Inc., and others, filed their complaint against “Arorora Investments” on October 11, 2021, in Outagamie County Circuit Court. However, they later discovered that the actual owner of the gas station was Banee Corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act by pricing gasoline below cost at a gas station located at 1717 West College Avenue in Appleton. They initially named “Arorora Investments” as the defendant based on information from the Appleton City Clerk’s Office but could not find such an entity registered with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. Despite efforts to confirm the correct identity of the defendant through opposing counsel in a related case involving Banee Corporation, it wasn’t until much later that they sought to amend their complaint to name Banee Corporation correctly.

The circuit court ruled that while misnaming the defendant was only a technical defect and not fundamental, it would not allow an amendment to correct this error after more than a year had passed since filing. The court noted that allowing such an amendment would cause undue delay and potential prejudice to Banee Corporation due to lost evidence over time. The plaintiffs argued that once a technical misnaming is identified, the correct party should automatically replace the misnamed one without further discretion by the court. However, this argument was rejected.

Ultimately, Judge Mark J. McGinnis affirmed his decision to dismiss the complaint without allowing for amendments due to procedural delays and concerns about fairness in defending against claims under Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act. The plaintiffs’ appeal was heard by Judges Stark, Hruz, and Gill of District II Court of Appeals.

Representing themselves were various law firms for both parties involved: attorneys for plaintiffs included those from local firms specializing in corporate litigation while defense counsel appeared specially from another ongoing case involving similar issues with Banee Corporation.

Case ID: 2023AP849