February 2, 2026 – Town of Farmington, WI – Oral arguments were presented in Washington County Circuit Court on Monday afternoon, February 2, 2026, in connection with a case involving Shalom Wildlife Sanctuary, We Love Farmington U.A., and the Town of Farmington. The oral arguments were heard in Judge Ryan Hetzel’s court. The decision was just one step in a number of cases involving the parties.
Click HERE to view the case via Wisconsin Circuit Court Access
There was a large turnout of support for David and Lana Fechter from Shalom Wildlife Sanctuary as 22 people filled the seats behind David Fechter who sat up front with his attorney Matthew Fernholz.
Click HERE to read the DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF SHALOM WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, LLC’S RESPONSE TO WE LOVE FARMINGTON, U.A./LEANN BEEHLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Below is language from Washington County Circuit Court
02-02-2026 Oral arguments Hetzel, Ryan J.
Additional text:
Clerk: EZ. Attorney Joseph Robert Cincotta in court for We Love Farmington, U.A. Attorney Olivia Marie Kelley in court for Andrew Willetts. Attorney Kelly Del Ponte in court for Town of Farmington. Attorney Matthew Martin Fernholz in court for Shalom Wildlife Sanctuary, LLC with David Fechter. Third party defendant Leann Beehler in court. Attorney Sydney Jean Wilcox in court for Ronald J Kahn.
Atty. Kelley makes oral arguments on behalf of Willetts and moves to dismiss the abuse of process claim and argues for Conspiracy-injury to business claim be dismissed.
Atty. Cincotta makes oral arguments and Atty. Wilcox makes brief oral arguments and concurs with Plaintiffs.
Atty. Fernholz makes oral arguments on abuse of process and requests both Motions be denied.
Atty. Del Ponte does not argue.
Atty. Kelley makes additional argument to dismiss the counterclaims.
Atty. Cincotta makes additional arguments.
Additional statements by Atty. Kelley and Atty. Cincotta.
Court makes findings on Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims filed by Shalom Wildlife Sanctuary-
Court makes findings on claim of Injury to Business and find the pleadings provide a claim Court denies the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims.
Court directs Atty. Fernholz shall prepare appropriate Order.
Court Orders briefing on Motion to Dismiss Plaintffs’, We Love Farmington and Andrew Willetts claims and for Plaintiff to File Answer.
Atty. Kelley requests parties move to Amend the Scheduling Order.
Atty. Fernholz request new Scheduling Order after Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss in Doc. 68.
Court orders Atty. Fernholz to prepare appropriate order-Court withdraws the previous Scheduling Order pending a new Scheduling Order.
Court Answer be filed by
Discovery on counterclaims is able to proceed despite the Summary Judgment Motion. All counsel agree discovery is needed. Court orders discovery is open despite the Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgment and Counterclaim.
We Love Farmington and Willetts shall file a Response brief by 3-20-2026 on Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment and Reply brief from Shalom and Town of Farmington filed by 4-2-2026.
Oral arguments scheduled for April 22, 2026, at 10 am.
After court was dismissed, Attorney Joseph Robert Cincotta, in court for We Love Farmington, U.A., declined comment. The other attorneys gathered in a closed-door conference room with their clients.
Attorney Fernholz said his client, Shalom Wildlife Sanctuary, was happy with the decision. “I don’t want to speculate on how the court came to its decision, but I think we laid out all the facts that supported the counter claim and the third-party complaint and that was enough to survive the motion to dismiss,” he said.
Two things will now happen. “Discovery will now move forward on our claims that we’ve alleged,” said Fernholz. “But the court has also scheduled a hearing on our motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, and we have now filed a motion to get their claim dismissed saying the new ordinance passed by the town essentially mooted out and eliminated their claim.”
It was December 9, 2025, when the Town of Farmington voted 3 – 0 on an amendment to the zoning code that would permit Shalom to engage in “zoological activities.”
The ordinance defined “zoological activities” to include such activities as breeding animals, hosting visitor centers, offering trails, selling food and beverages, and hosting special events such as weddings.
Shalom is now asking the court to dismiss this lawsuit which may occur sometime between now and the end of March 2026. (Click HERE to review the motion).
After the court session, which lasted about an hour, supporters of Shalom gathered in the hallway. Diann and Ray Wick drove in from Pewaukee to support Shalom. “Apparently it’s one step forward,” she said. “I’ve been following Shalom on social media for years and we’re 100 percent behind them.”
Ray Wick said of the zoo, “It’s such a nice venue for so many children who are disabled, and they come in from all over.”
“It’s a great day for Shalom’s family,” said Lin Fonder from Beechwood. “This whole situation is very hard on the business and on David and Lana. I think this needs to stop. I think the community has spoken and we just want the zoo to continue; everybody loves the zoo.”
The next court dates are posted below.
As always Shalom Zoo is in my prayers. I take much joy following Ginger and her sweet family growing so fast. Be at peace and know you have many following you and how much you love your animals. You take good care.
Well done but more to come. Hang in there Dave and Lana. Prayers are being answered.