A federal court in Wisconsin has recommended the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Adrian Johnson and Cearra R. Warne against Brewery Credit Union and several individuals. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to properly serve the defendants within the required time frame, which could have significant implications for their claims.
This case, identified as docket number 2:26-cv-00821, was filed on October 16, 2026. The plaintiffs alleged violations related to due process, racial discrimination in contracting, and Fair Housing Act violations, among other state law claims. The court's recommendation comes after the plaintiffs did not meet the legal requirements for serving the defendants.
Background
Adrian Johnson and Cearra R. Warne are the plaintiffs in this case, bringing their claims against Brewery Credit Union and several individuals associated with the credit union, including Darnieder & Sosnay, Michael A. Sosnay, Kristin Brojanac, Matthew Swanson, and Renae Wittlief. They allege that their rights were violated in various ways, including through discrimination and failure to uphold fair housing standards.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Johnson and Warne sought damages and requested that the court quiet title, which means they wanted the court to resolve any disputes regarding property ownership. However, the court has now raised concerns about whether the plaintiffs properly served the defendants with the necessary legal documents.
The Ruling
In its recommendation, the court noted that the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendants via certified mail, which is generally not an acceptable method of service under Wisconsin law. According to the court, “certified mail is generally not an acceptable method of service under Wisconsin law.” The court emphasized that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiffs must serve defendants within ninety days after filing the complaint.
After the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate proper service by the deadline of August 6, 2026, the court ordered them to show cause for the lack of service. The plaintiffs later requested an extension, which the court granted, setting a new deadline of October 7, 2026. However, the plaintiffs did not meet this deadline either. The court stated, “Finding that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing service on any defendant, the court may dismiss the action against them without prejudice.”
Impact
The court's recommendation to dismiss the case could have significant consequences for Johnson and Warne. If the court accepts the recommendation, the plaintiffs will lose their opportunity to pursue their claims against Brewery Credit Union and the other defendants. This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal cases, particularly regarding service of process.
This case serves as a reminder that even when a plaintiff has valid claims, failure to follow proper legal procedures can lead to dismissal. The outcome may also influence how other plaintiffs approach similar cases in the future, emphasizing the need for diligence in ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
What's Next
The court's recommendation can still be challenged. The plaintiffs have the right to file objections to the recommendation within fourteen days of its service. If they choose to do so, the case may continue, depending on the court's review of their objections.