A recent decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals allows two parties contesting control over a local company to move forward with an appeal of preliminary rulings that were not initially subject to automatic review. The case concerns the ongoing dispute regarding the ownership and management of Herbal Aspect LLC, which is currently being arbitrated following a lower court order.
According to documents filed on March 5, 2026, Alan Robinson and Herbal Aspect LLC submitted an appeal in Dane County against Alexander Gish, Matthew Nelson, and Rachel Cefalu. The core issue involves who has rightful authority over Herbal Aspect LLC. Robinson filed the original complaint seeking relief both for himself and on behalf of the company against the three defendants.
The legal process began when the defendants requested that all proceedings be stayed until arbitration could take place, citing Wisconsin Statute § 788.02. This statute requires courts to halt litigation if there is an agreement between parties mandating arbitration for disputes. The circuit court agreed with this request, concluding that “the parties’ dispute is arbitrable.” As noted in the appellate opinion: “The appellants do not contest that the underlying dispute is arbitrable.”
However, before the stay was decided, Robinson and his co-appellant brought two motions at issue in this appeal: one seeking a preliminary injunction to restrain actions by Gish, Nelson, and Cefalu regarding management of company resources; another asking for a declaration that their chosen law firm was properly retained as counsel for Herbal Aspect LLC. Both motions were opposed by the defendants who argued that such relief was precluded by existing case law interpreting arbitration statutes.
The circuit court ultimately declined to grant either motion after determining it lacked authority because both were “intertwined with ‘substantive matters’ that would be decided in arbitration.” The written order memorialized these oral rulings: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT [the Gish parties’] Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Arbitration is granted … including [the Robinson parties’] claims and motions pursuant to the arbitration provision.”
Robinson and Herbal Aspect appealed this stay order as well as the denial of their preliminary motions. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to consider these challenges as part of an automatic right or only through special permission (leave). It concluded that while orders relating strictly to whether a matter should go to arbitration are final (and thus automatically appealable), other orders—such as those denying preliminary injunctions or declarations about legal representation—are considered nonfinal if they pertain only to issues within the underlying action rather than the special proceeding on arbitrability.
As stated in its analysis: “We conclude that WIS. STAT. § 808.03(1) does not give this court jurisdiction over an appeal of the circuit court’s rulings on the preliminary motions in the underlying action.” However, recognizing potential confusion due to complex procedural rules—and after receiving supplemental briefing from both sides—the appellate panel exercised its discretion under WIS. STAT. § 808.03(2) to grant leave for these issues despite procedural delays.
The opinion further clarified why such leave was justified: “On review of the parties’ letter briefing regarding criteria … we conclude that granting leave is appropriate under statutory standards.” Specifically, it found good cause because neither party had raised jurisdictional concerns until prompted by the court itself after full merits briefing had occurred.
In summary, while affirming established distinctions between final orders (relating solely to arbitrability) and nonfinal orders (concerning other aspects of litigation), the Court permitted Robinson and Herbal Aspect LLC’s appeal regarding their denied preliminary motions to proceed by granting leave under discretionary authority.
The case was heard before Judges Graham (Presiding Judge), Blanchard, and Taylor; Circuit Judge Rhonda L. Lanford issued prior orders at trial level; Samuel A. Christensen is listed as Clerk of Court of Appeals; Case ID: 2024AP2615.
Source: 2024AP2615_Herbal_Aspect_LLC_v_Gish_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf