WALLACE R. BURNETT, Appellant (Plaintiff),
JOHN E. BURNETT, Individually and as Successor Trustee to the Lillian M. Burnett Living Trust, Dated April 12, 2002; JUDY L. BABEL; CAROL A. BURNETT WOODWARD; DAVID BURNETT; and BURNETT RANCH, INC. Appellees (Defendants).
from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable
Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge
Representing Appellant: Pro se.
Representing Appellees: Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas &
Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming; Ryan L. Ford, Williams,
Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming; Marty L.
Oblasser, Corthell and King Law Office, P.C., Laramie,
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
In this appeal, Wallace Burnett challenges the district
court's order dismissing his complaint against Appellees.
Because of Mr. Burnett's failure to present cogent
argument and to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate
Procedure, we will summarily affirm the district court's
order and grant the Appellees' request to award costs and
Mr. Burnett owned 11 of the 604 outstanding shares of Burnett
Ranch, Inc. The other shares were owned by his three siblings
and his son. In 2015, Mr. Burnett filed suit against his
siblings and his son. He presented claims for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the transfer of corporate assets, an
accounting, a minority shareholder derivative action,
damages, and a winding-up of the corporation and sale of its
assets. In an amended complaint, he added a claim for
determination of ownership of the corporate shares. In
response to Mr. Burnett's amended complaint, Appellees
filed a motion to dismiss. Following a hearing, the district
court granted the motion. Mr. Burnett appealed.
Mr. Burnett is acting pro se in this appeal.
A pro se litigant is entitled to some leniency from
the stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted
by attorneys. However, there must be a reasonable adherence
to the procedural rules and requirements of the court.
Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2000).
This Court will impose sanctions including, but not limited
to, summary affirmance, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03 on pro
se litigants who fail to comply with these rules.
Id. at 1262-63.
Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295,
297 (Wyo. 2002). Mr. Burnett has not provided cogent argument
to support his claims on appeal, and he has not complied with
our rules of appellate procedure. As a result, we will
summarily affirm the district court's decision.
W.R.A.P. 3.05(b) provides as follows:
Appellant shall, contemporaneously with filing its brief in
the appellate court and service of that brief upon appellee,
file with the clerk of the trial court and serve on all
parties and the appellate court clerk a designation for
transmission of all parts of the record, without unnecessary