[U] Chase Manhattan Bank V. Banks

¶1. Ira R. Banks, pro se, appeals from a grant of summary judgment resulting in a real estate foreclosure judgment against him in favor of Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase Manhattan). He raises what we surmise to be seven claims of error: (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the parties; (2) Chase Manhattan was not a real party of interest; (3) the trial court violated his rights to equal protection by its selective use of its sanction powers under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10(3) & (7), 802.05 and 804.12 (2001-02);*fn1 (4) the trial court violated his due process rights when it permitted a motion for summary judgment to be heard before the deadline set in the scheduling order for discovery; (5) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Chase Manhattan; (6) the actions of the trial court in denying his motion for an injunction deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and rights afforded him under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (7) the trial court erred in failing to conclude that Chase Manhattan's attorneys did not comply with SCR 20:1.2 (2001) and SCR 62.02 (2002). Because there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the trial court erred, we affirm.