Cor v. Sinclair Services Co.
2017 WY 116
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff William Cor, pro se and a former project engineer, sued Sinclair Services Co., Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co., Raymond Hansen, and James Larscheid for fraud in inducement and execution, breach of contract, and malicious destruction of property.
- Defendants moved to dismiss rather than answer; the district court set a response deadline and requested a hearing.
- Cor did not file a timely response to the motion to dismiss.
- The district court granted the defendants’ motion without a hearing, stating Cor had not contested the dismissal and adopting the reasons in defendants’ motion.
- Cor timely appealed pro se; the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed based on deficiencies in Cor’s appellate brief and noncompliance with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Cor comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure? | Cor filed an appeal but omitted required brief components. | Defendants argued procedural noncompliance warranted affirmance. | Court: Cor’s brief violated multiple W.R.A.P. 7.01 requirements; affirmed under W.R.A.P. 1.03. |
| 2. Was dismissal improper for lack of timely response to motion to dismiss? | Cor implied the district court erred in dismissing without considering his merits. | Defendants relied on Cor’s failure to respond as a basis for dismissal. | Not reached on merits because appellate noncompliance resolved appeal. |
| 3. Did the complaint state a viable claim? | Cor contended his claims (fraud, breach, malicious destruction) were actionable. | Defendants argued the complaint failed for reasons in their motion to dismiss. | Not addressed due to summary affirmance for procedural deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch v. Pomeroy, 130 P.3d 437 (Wyo. 2006) (discusses consequences for failing to follow appellate rules)
- Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co., 272 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2012) (appellate court has discretion to dismiss or summarily affirm for deficient briefs)
- McElreath v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Comp. Div., 901 P.2d 1103 (Wyo. 1995) (standards on appellate discretion for procedural defects)
- MTM v. State (In re KD), 26 P.3d 1036 (Wyo. 2001) (pro se litigants are afforded some leeway but must comply with rules)
- Nathan v. Am. Global Univ., 113 P.3d 32 (Wyo. 2005) (affirmance for deficient appellate briefing under W.R.A.P. 1.03)