Decisions by Judge Mark W. Bennett This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.
	Home General Information Where to Find Us How to Contact Us FAQs Federal Judges/General Court FAQs Case Filing FAQs Self Help(ProSe Litigants FAQs) Jurors' FAQs Web Site Help Employment Opportunities Becoming a Citizen Notices Seminars Disclosure Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability Clerk of Court Where to Find Us How to Contact Us Office Hours Administrative Orders Local and Federal Rules Employment Opportunities Court Fees and Costs Forms Information for Jurors Welcome Jury Handbook Where to Find Us How to Contact Us Parking Information Inclement Weather Information Jurors' FAQs Automated Juror Information System Information for Jurors' Employers E-Juror Judges Information Chief Judge Linda R. Reade District Judge Mark W. Bennett Senior Judge Edward J. McManus Senior Judge Donald E. O'Brien Chief Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles Seminars Disclosure Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability Information for Attorneys Admission to the Northern District of Iowa Administrative Orders Local and Federal Rules Electronic Case Filing PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) Jury Instructions Court Fees and Costs Forms-CJA Manual Notices Committees CLE Information Judges' Conflict of Interest Pages Electronic Case Filing PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) Registration for CM/ECF CM/ECF Procedures Training in CM/ECF Reference Materials Decisions/Verdicts Decisions Jury Verdicts Courtroom Technology Cedar Rapids Courtroom Photos and Maps Training Video Conferencing Available Technology Sioux City Courtroom Photos and Maps Training Video Conferencing Available Technology Other Resources Community Information Cedar Rapids Sioux City Other Court Sites Bar Association Sites Weather Historical Society General Information Membership Information Meeting Information Self Help (Pro Se Litigants) Self Help Tools Forms FAQs Procedures for Filing in the Northern District Judges' Conflict of Interest Pages Probation Office Site Map
	Judge Case Type Case Name Date Filed Judge Mark W. Bennett Civil - Lampman, et al. v. Ternus, et al. (Motion for Summary Judgment, § 1983 case involving Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, plaintiffs, court reporters for Iowa District Associate Judges, alleged that they were entitled to due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to employment termination or reduction in hours; cross motions for summary judgment; analysis of whether, assuming arguendo that Iowa law creates a property interest in plaintiffs’ employment, plaintiffs were not entitled to pre-termination notice and an opportunity to be heard under the “reorganization exception” to the general rule that requires due process prior to a public employee’s termination.) 02/06/2012 - Middleton, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (Summary judgment motion in the Southern District of Iowa; considering whether plaintiff in patent infringement case had constitutional standing as an exclusive licensee) 01/31/2012 - Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al.: (Advocacy group’s action challenging Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring “milk” in final package form for beverage use to be pasteurized or ultrapasteurized and prohibiting the delivery into interstate commerce of any milk in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized; plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enjoin the FDA from continuing or commencing enforcement actions pursuant to the regulations against non-parties while this court considers the plaintiffs’ claims: scope of the court’s authority to enjoin other actions “in aid of” its jurisdiction; requirements for a preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act; balancing of pertinent factors) 01/23/2012 - Sak & Leifer v. The City of Aurelia, Iowa: (Action by disabled individual pursuant to Title II of the ADA against city for failure to modify an ordinance barring pit bull dogs to accommodate his pit bull mix service animal; plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction: whether an ordinance barring pit bull dogs or enforcement of that ordinance is a service, program, or activity of the city or otherwise discriminatory on the basis of disability within the scope of Title II of the ADA; whether a breed restriction in an ordinance is impermissible under Title II of the ADA, when it bars a service dog of that breed; whether permitting a service animal of a different breed is a reasonable accommodation; whether deprivation of a particular service animal threatened irreparable harm to a disabled individual; whether the balance of harms favored an injunction; whether the public interest in accommodation of disabled persons under Title II of the ADA trumped the public interest in public health and safety embodied in the ordinance; and whether a bond should be required, and in what amount, in this case before issuance of a preliminary injunction) 12/28/2011 - Minten v. Weber (Plaintiff, a longtime county deputy sheriff, alleged that his firing resulted from his offering to testify in support of the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the sheriff; cross motions for summary judgment; analysis of whether plaintiff engaged in protected speech, i.e. speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern; whether the sheriff took an adverse employment action against him; whether plaintiff’s speech was a motivating factor in the adverse action taken against him; and whether sheriff would have fired plaintiff regardless of whether he offered to testify ) 12/22/2011 - Campbell v. State of Iowa Third Judicial District Department of Corrections, et al. (Employment; former state agency employee’s action for sex and age discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216, as well as claims of retaliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Iowa’s whistleblower statute, Iowa Code § 70A.28(2), and Iowa public policy; defendants’ motion for summary judgment, analysis of whether the summary judgment record generated genuine issues of material fact as to circumstantial evidence of age and sex discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis; discussion of whether plaintiff was speaking as a citizen when she voiced her concerns about victim safety, so her speech was protected by the First Amendment; and, examination of whether state employee was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.) 11/22/2011 - Lee v. Small & Toft, et al. 11/22/2011 - McFarland v. McFarland, et al. (Diversity action for slander, libel, and defamation; Joint Bill of Costs; analysis of whether defendants entitled to reimbursement for certain litigation expenses pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, specifically the costs of: depositions, a transcript in a divorce proceeding, transferring depositions from a floppy disc to a CD, copies of medical records, the cost of photocopies for summary judgment documents, and the rental of a conference room center used for taking depositions.) 11/15/2011 - In Re: Iowa Ready-Mix Concrete Antitrust Litigation (Motion for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of costs, and class representative incentive awards following settlement of consolidated antitrust class action case; awarding $6,666,666.67 in attorneys’ fees, $911,445.92 in costs, and $10,000.00 to each named plaintiff, to be paid from the common settlement fund.) 11/09/2011 - Freie v. Fayram (Petition for habeas corpus relief from Iowa state court conviction under § 2254; respondent filed motion to dismiss claiming that all of petitioner’s claims were untimely; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge recommended granting respondent’s motion because petitioner’s claims were untimely; petitioner filed pro se objections to report and recommendation; the court concluded that magistrate judge correctly determined that petitioner’s claims were all barred by the one-year period of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted. ) 10/13/2011 - Truckenmiller v. Burgess Health Center & Francis Tramp (action by a human resources director purportedly terminated for poor performance after voicing concerns about differences in titles and pay between male and female members of the senior leadership team at the defendant hospital; motion for summary judgment by the defendant hospital and the defendant CEO: whether the plaintiff’s comments satisfied the “complaint” requirements for protection from retaliation under the Equal Pay Act provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), as recently clarified in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011), whether there was sufficient evidence to generate a genuine issues of material fact on a “causal connection” between the comments and the plaintiff’s discharge two days later and on whether the defendants’ proffered legitimate reason for the discharge, poor performance, was a pretext for retaliation; whether the plaintiff’s claim of wrongful discharge in violation of the Iowa public policy against unequal pay on the basis of sex articulated in Iowa Code § 216.6 was preempted by the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA)) 09/30/2011 - The State of Arizona & Angela Aguilar v. ASARCO, LLC (Action by Arizona state civil rights agency and an individual plaintiff, a laborer at a mine operated by the defendant, alleged claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law; individual plaintiff’s post-trial motion for attorney fees; analysis of whether plaintiff’s fee request should be reduced by twenty percent to take into account the fact that the individual plaintiff was only partially successful on her claims; examination of the reasonableness of the individual plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate as well as the reasonableness of numerous time entries.) 09/29/2011 - Baldwin v. U.S. (Civil tax refund case in the District for the Northern Mariana Islands; plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an order striking his jury demands; considering appropriate standard of review for reconsideration of the interlocutory order of another district judge; analyzing whether plaintiff’s first jury demand was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and, in the alternative, whether plaintiff’s second jury demand was permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) as a late demand due to excusable neglect) 09/26/2011 - Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc. (Action by plaintiff seed producer based on defendant grain elevator company’s refusal to accept transgenic corn grown from the seed producer’s seeds, because it had not been approved for import in China, and placement of signs at the grain elevator company’s facilities stating its reasons for refusing to accept such corn; seed producer’s motion for preliminary injunction: clarification of standards for a preliminary injunction in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008); balancing of the seed producer’s likelihood of success on its claims of violations of the United States Warehouse Act (USWA), 7 U.S.C. § 241 et seq., including whether there is a private right of action for violations of that Act, comparable provisions of Iowa statutory and common-law warehousing obligations, and false advertising pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); the seed producer’s showing of irreparable harm based on damage to reputation and goodwill; the balance of equities in light of the determination on the seed producer’s likelihood of success and the costs to the grain elevator company of accepting the transgenic corn at issue; and the public interest) 09/26/2011 - McFarland v. McFarland, et al. (Diversity action for slander, libel, and defamation; motion to strike and motions for summary judgment; analysis under Iowa law of whether defendants could establish the required elements for invoking issue preclusion based on Iowa divorce case, and whether defendants’ statements about plaintiff were absolutely privileged under Iowa law. 09/20/2011 - Sizemoore v. Producers Cooperative Company, et al. (diversity action arising from an automobile accident, in which the plaintiff alleges that she is now a citizen of Florida; defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the federal action under Colorado River, because the plaintiff filed an identical action in state court two days later that differs only in that the plaintiff alleged that she was a citizen of Iowa at he time of the accident: whether dismissal or stay of this action “at law” is permissible under Colorado River; application of the pertinent factors for Colorado River) 09/19/2011 - Timmerman, et al v. Eich, et al : (action by debtors and case trustee against former bankruptcy attorneys for malpractice and breach of warranty; bankruptcy attorneys’ motion for summary judgment: standing of the trustee to assert malpractice claims, involving the effect of 11 U.S.C. § 1207 on definition of property of the estate; subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy malpractice claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334; applicability of issue preclusion and judicial estoppel when prior judgment is by consent; applicability of doctrine of in pari delicto; availability of emotional distress damages for bankruptcy malpractice; availability of a breach of warranty claim with a malpractice claim; availability of punitive damages) 09/12/2011 - Estate of McFarlin, et al v. City of Storm Lake, et al (action arising from the death of a minor child brought by the child’s mother on behalf of the child’s estate and on behalf of herself and her surviving child for bystander emotional distress and loss of consortium; estranged father’s motion to join as necessary or “required” party pursuant to Rule 19, construed as a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, and defendants’ joinder in Rule 19 motion seeking dismissal: feasibility of joinder of a party who would destroy diversity jurisdiction; whether missing party was “necessary”) 09/06/2011 - Nam v. Quichocho & Atalig (Saipan real estate contract dispute between a Saipan lawyer lessor (and another co-owner) and a Korean businessman lessee arising from the lessors’ attempt to terminate the lessee’s 55-year lease, on which the lessee had made full payment up front, after only two years; cross-motions for summary judgment on the lessee’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the attorney lessor, premised on the lessee’s belief that he had an attorney-client relationship with the attorney lessor regarding the lease transaction, and on the lessee’s claims against both lessors for breach of contract and restitution; lessee’s motion for summary judgment on the lessors’ counterclaims for slander of title, breach of contract, express contractual indemnity, waste, and quiet title; and lessors’ motion to strike one declaration in support of the lessee’s motion for summary judgment) 09/01/2011 - Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Construction, Inc., et al. 08/29/2011 - EEOC v. Asia Pacific Hotels, Inc. (action by EEOC against hotel owner and operator and hotel holding company on behalf of a singer in a Filipino rock band for sexual harassment: defendants’ motion for summary judgment on applicability of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense) 08/26/2011 - United States v. Russell Hawley & Hawley Insurance, Inc. (This civil action involves a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment filed on the part of defendants Russell T. Hawley and Hawley Insurance, Inc. (collectively the “defendants” or “Hawley”). Hawley alleges that amendments to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, as set forth in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”), Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(f)(1), 123 Stat. 1617, 1625 (2009), do not apply to the present matter and, thus, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hawley further argues that even if the amendments do apply, such retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto clause and Hawley’s right to Due Process under the United States Constitution. The court granted Hawley’s Motion as to his claim that the FERA amendments to the FCA do not apply, because Hawley did not have a “claim,” or a demand for money to the NCCI pending on or after June 7, 2008. The court also granted Hawley’s Motion as to his claim that retroactive application of the FERA amendments to the FCA would result in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution, because the FCA’s statutory scheme is punitive in nature, and, thus, retroactive application of the amendments to the FCA would impose punishment for acts that were not punishable prior to enactment of the amendments.) 08/01/2011 - Guinan, et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. (Employment law, motion for summary judgment and motion to strike; suit by employees against employer alleging that defendant’s failure to compensate donning and doffing time violates the Iowa Wage Payment and Collections Law, Iowa Code § 91A.1 et seq.; analysis of whether donning and doffing workers’ personal protective equipment is “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), the statute plaintiffs rely upon to establish a violation of the Iowa Wage Payment and Collections Law. ) 07/25/2011 - In re Meta Financial Group, Inc., Securities Litigation(Putative class action by investors against a bank holding company and bank officers for securities fraud arising from failure to disclose an investigation by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) of a short-term credit program using prepaid debit cards: defendants’ motion to dismiss: whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded a § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim and, in particular, the alleged misstatements and scienter, with the particularity required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b); whether the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a § 20 “control person” liability claim) 07/18/2011 - State of Arizona Dep't of Law, Civil Rights Division & Angela Aguilar v. ASARCO, LLC (action by Arizona state civil rights agency and an individual plaintiff, a laborer at a mine operated by the defendant, alleged claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law; defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, challenging submissibility of the sexual harassment claim and punitive damages and the amount of the punitive damages award as unconstitutionally excessive; defendant’s alternative motion for new trial, challenging the court’s answer to a question from the jury as misleading and the court’s admission of “me too” evidence; the plaintiffs’ post-trial motion for equitable and injunctive relief to compel the defendant to create or modify and implement an adequate policy against sexual harassment and to require certain training of managers, supervisors, and other employees, concerning sexual harassment) 07/13/2011 - Fraserside IP LLC v. Youngtek Solutions Limited (Copyright and trademark infringement, defendant’s motion to set aside default, analysis of whether service or process in Cyprus was satisfied under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters where plaintiff used private process server and the summons and complaint, with no Greek translation, were served on defendant’s agent for process in Cyprus, analysis of whether the default should be set aside for good cause.) 07/12/2011 - Mathison v. U.S. (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting as grounds that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to withdraw when a per se conflict of interest between counsel and petitioner was created, in failing to raise a sentencing challenge pursuant to Gall, and for failing to request a change of venue. Petitioner also argues respondent committed prosecutorial misconduct by using the unreliable testimony of witness during his trial. In addition, petitioner contends newly discovered evidence, the unreliability of a witness’s testimony, entitles him to a new trial. Motion denied in its entirety: first, petitioner could not demonstrate his counsel’s conduct fell below the wide range of reasonable professional assistance in failing to withdraw, in failing to raise a sentencing challenge pursuant to Gall, and for failing to request a change of venue. Petitioner also not entitled to relief on his claim of prosecutorial misconduct because he did not establish that witness’s statement was perjurious and, further, did not establish that the prosecution knew or should have known that the statements constituted perjury. In addition, petitioner did not establish that witness’s alleged perjurious statement regarding a defendant in a separate case constituted newly discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial.) 07/05/2011 - Jones, et al v. Dolgencorp, Inc. & Dollar General Partners (In a collective action by fourteen plaintiffs, the defendants, Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Partners, filed a Motion to Strike and a Motion for Summary Judgment, solely against plaintiff Pamm Joyner-Azbill. Plaintiff claims defendants have a uniform policy and practice of consistently requiring managerial staff to work overtime without compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff also claims the vast majority of work hours are spent performing non-managerial job duties. The court denied the defendants’ Motion to Strike, because the motion was improper under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the court denied the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, because a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s primary duty was manual labor. ) 06/08/2011 - Strom v. Holiday Companies, et al. (Employment discrimination, suit by former employee against former employer alleging sex discrimination under both the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under Iowa Code 216; defendant’s motion for summary judgment; among the issues in dispute in this litigation was whether the "harassment" employee suffered was because of employee’s sex; whether the "harassment" in question was sufficiently severe and pervasive to be actionable, and whether a reasonable person would find the working conditions at issue so intolerable that she was compelled to remain away from work while awaiting the results of the investigation) 06/06/2011 - Kitterman v. Coventry Health Care of Iowa, Inc. (action for judicial review of denial of health insurance benefits pursuant to ERISA: determination of whether any issues remain to be resolved after remand from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: whether the court must now decide questions that it did not address in its original decision on the merits, which are whether the Schedule of Benefits is a summary plan description (SPD) or “faulty” SPD, which turn on the question of whether the terms of the purported SPD or “faulty” SPD conflict with the terms of the plan, as construed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals) 06/06/2011 - Magnussen v. Casey's Marketing Company & Van Seggern (convenience store manager’s claims of disparate treatment disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation pursuant to the ADA (pre-ADAAA) and ICRA; defendants’ motion for summary judgment: whether the plaintiff was “actually disabled,” “regarded as disabled,” or “had a record of disability,” rather than a temporary limitation, because of a “flare up” of a back condition; whether, if “disabled,” she was “qualified” for her position based on standing restrictions; whether the plaintiff was terminated from her position for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons rather than for leaving shift vacancies uncovered; and whether, if “actually disabled,” the employer failed to accommodate that disability and whether the employer or the plaintiff is responsible for the breakdown of the “interactive process” to determine reasonable accommodation) 05/26/2011 - Cornerstone Consultants, Inc. & Qualy v. Production Input Solutions,LLC (action by an independent contractor arising from a company’s access to the contractor’s private e-mails, to and from separate e-mail accounts, stored on the company’s e-mail server with e-mails to and from the independent contractor’s account on the company’s e-mail service; defendants’ motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2701, a provision of the Stored Communications Act: whether, in light of the interplay between § 2701(a), creating a cause of action, and § 2701(c), excepting access authorized by certain entities from liability, the plaintiffs adequately pleaded that the company’s access to the company’s e-mail server, where the independent contractor’s e-mails were stored, was unauthorized or in excess of any authorization by the entity that “provided” the pertinent “electronic communications service”; whether state-law claims against the moving defendants should be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), upon dismissal of federal claims against them, where a federal claim remained pending against a non-moving defendant) 05/19/2011 - Precision Press, Inc. d/b/a Anderson Brothers Printing Company v. MLP USA, Inc. (Contract law; Motion to confirm arbitration award and motion to vacate arbitration award; order granting motion to confirm arbitration award and denying motion to vacate arbitration award; dispute over whether arbitration clause in sales agreement for commercial printer displaced review of the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act with state law; review of the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act; and determination of whether plaintiff’s grounds for vacating the arbitration award are among those cognizable under the Federal Arbitration Act.) 05/11/2011 - Luken v. Edwards (Case brought under Title III of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (“Title III” or “the Act”) for intercepted telephone calls between plaintiff and other individuals, including his attorney, with pendent claims for invasion of attorney-client privilege, invasion of privacy, and under Iowa’s wiretapping act, Iowa Code § 808B.8; motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; concluding that Amended Complaint’s factual allegations that plausibly stated claims under Title III, Iowa Code § 808B.8, and invasion of privacy, but dismissing invasion of attorney-client privilege claim because it is not recognized under Iowa law. 05/03/2011 - Vis v. American Family Assurance Company of Columbus (insurance agent’s action against insurance company for breach of contract for failing to pay renewal commissions after termination: insurance company’s motion to compel arbitration: validity of the arbitration agreement as part of an alleged contract of adhesion and as unconscionable, because of disparity of bargaining power and lack of mutuality, where the arbitration clause excepted certain actions by the insurance company) 04/21/2011 - Powell v. Fayram : (state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254: prisoner’s objections to report and recommendation of magistrate judge to deny the petition in its entirety: whether state courts made unreasonable factual determinations or unreasonably applied United States Supreme Court law to the prisoner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in not giving him correct advice during plea negotiations about the time that he would have to serve in prison on a mandatory minimum sentence if he were convicted on a state charge of attempted murder) 04/21/2011 - Woodward v. O'Brien, et al. (Motion for Summary Judgment, prisoner § 1983 case involving Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting summary judgment because plaintiff is unable to show defendants ignored an acute or escalating situation, or that the defendants’ delays in providing him with treatment adversely affected the prognosis or ultimate outcome of his eye condition. ) 04/20/2011 - Siouxland Community Blood Bank v. Holcomb Freightliner, Inc. & Cummins Engine Company, Inc.This action was originally filed in state court. It was removed to federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff has moved to remand it back to state court — asserting the Petition seeks less than $75,000 in damages — the minimum required for federal jurisdiction. The court concludes that the defendants have not established that, at the time of removal, the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. 04/13/2011 - Bussey v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt) 03/25/2011 - Jason & Jennifer Tucker v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt) 03/25/2011 - Holt v. Quality Egg. LLC (Six actions, consolidated for discovery, arising out of an outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis in the summer of 2010 that was allegedly tied to the defendant’s eggs and egg products: defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss punitive damages claims and Rule 12(f) motions to strike certain allegations in support of punitive damages claims; whether underlying claims must have a “willfulness” element to support an award of punitive damages; whether the regulations and acts underlying a negligence per se claim must permit punitive damages; and whether certain punitive damages allegations concerning past misconduct are related to the underlying causes of action) 03/25/2011 - Lewis v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt) 03/25/2011 - Daughetee v. CHR Hansen, Inc. Diversity tort case, motions to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), analysis of whether the court must consider dismissed defendant in accessing whether all defendants reside in Iowa turns on whether venue should be evaluated, when complaint filed or on the date the court considers motions to dismiss, court is bound to follow the controlling law in the Eighth Circuit, even if it reflects a minority view on the issue, which holds that a court should reassess venue on the basis of the circumstances as they exist at the time motion to dismiss is considered as opposed to the state of affairs when the complaint was first filed, court found that venue of case proper in the Northern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) because it is “a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.”) 03/25/2011 - Daniel & Libby Sands v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt) 03/25/2011 - Dzinovic v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt) 03/25/2011 - In Re Iowa Ready-Mix Concrete Antitrust Litigation (Class-action lawsuit by purchasers of ready-mix concrete against producers and sellers of ready-mix concrete and certain of their officers, directors, owners, and employees who have pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust offenses, alleging an antitrust conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of ready-mix concrete in the “Iowa region”: defendants’ motions to dismiss: failure to plead factual support for allegations of an antitrust conspiracy; whether or not to grant leave to amend post-dismissal) 03/08/2011 - Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa (In this civil rights “strip search” case, the court was asked to decide what to make of an initial verdict that was clearly at odds with the jury instructions, and the jurors attempt to cure this inconsistency in a second verdict after the court ordered further deliberations. The court concluded that because there was no legally plausible explanation for the dramatic increase in emotional distress damages awarded by the jury between the two verdicts, a new trial was imperative to prevent a miscarriage of justice.) 03/07/2011 - Johnson v. Dollar General, et al. (The plaintiff, Todd Johnson, filed an Amended Complaint against defendants, Dollar General, Dolgencorp, L.L.C., and Michael Williams. Johnson alleged that the defendants terminated his employment in retaliation for him missing work because of an illness and therefore in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. The court held that Johnson’s claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.) 02/15/2011 - Baker v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. (In this case, the court was asked to decide whether a pickup truck used to obtain fuel for refueling equipment on a salvage yard, constituted an “auto” or “mobile equipment” for purposes of determining liability for bodily injury or property damage under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The court concluded no genuine issues of material fact existed because the pickup truck was not insured for either bodily injury or property damage caused by negligence of its driver under the terms of the commercial general liability policy.) 02/15/2011 - Salton v. Polyock (Diversity Tort Action, motion to remand, review of the principles applicable to a motion to remand and analysis of whether removing party is able prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.) 02/10/2011 - Moore v. Lehigh Cement Company (longtime employee with epilepsy sued former employer for disability discrimination under the ADA and ICRA; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: whether the ADA or the ADAAA applied to the plaintiff’s claims; whether the plaintiff was actually disabled or perceived to be disabled based on limitations on the number of hours he could work per week or a combination of limitations; whether the plaintiff’s retaliation claim could proceed in light of the protracted time between protected activity and adverse action, his supervisor’s lack of knowledge of the plaintiff’s prior discrimination charge at the time of adverse action, but human resources manager’s knowledge of the prior charge, and employer’s assertion that the plaintiff was fired for a plant rules violation) 02/04/2011 - Kim v. Quichocho, et al: (Action involving fraud and RICO claims based on allegations that the defendants, including the plaintiff’s attorney, defrauded the plaintiff of two of her businesses; defendants’ second motion to dismiss RICO claims and motion to dismiss common-law fraud claim: adequacy of pleading of predicate acts of wire fraud and money laundering, a patter of racketeering activity, and conduct or acquisition of control of a RICO enterprise; pleading of an agreement, for purposes of RICO conspiracy claim, including whether an intracorporate conspiracy suffices; pleading of fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and whether fraud was based on anything other than representations about future events) 01/24/2011 - Aquino v. Delores San Nicolas, et al. (an alien convicted of drug offenses asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and CNMI law arising from her detention pending deportation, without review by a judge, for 88 days after the end of her sentence; defendants’ second round of motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s recast claims of violation of due process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on failure to deport the plaintiff “immediately” upon the completion of her sentence and continuing her detention without review by a judge, and new claims of breach of contract, based on alleged violation of a plea agreement requiring “immediate” deportation, and tortious breach of duty, based on breach of a duty to deport the plaintiff “immediately” upon the end of her sentence allegedly created by the judgment and commitment order; whether dismissal of claims this time should be with prejudice) 01/05/2011 - McGraw, et al. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, et al. (Action by bilked investors seeking to recover from a securities broker’s employers sums that they gave the broker (now deceased) to invest in fictitious “special investments”; cross-motions for summary judgment: timeliness of two plaintiffs’ claims; theories of liability for remaining claims; summary judgment on direct liability claims, including the necessity of expert testimony on the existence and breach of relevant standards of care, existence of a duty to non-customers, and the existence and breach of the duty to monitor and fiduciary duty; summary judgment on vicarious liability claims, including the broker’s apparent authority from the brokerage firms, and the existence and breach of the broker’s underlying duty as to representations, duty as to suitability of investments, and fiduciary duty) 12/22/2010 - McGraw, et al. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, et al. (Action by bilked investors seeking to recover from a securities broker’s employers sums that they gave the broker (now deceased) to invest in fictitious “special investments”; sua sponte order to clarify whether the plaintiffs’ remaining claims of “negligent supervision,” “negligent misrepresentation,” “negligence—suitability” [of investments],” and “breach of fiduciary duty” were based on direct or vicarious liability theories) 12/08/2010 - Rattray, et al. v. Woodbury County, Ia, et al : (Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging county jail’s strip-searches of three misdemeanor arrestees; plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment: constitutionality of a “blanket” strip-search policy, no longer in force, and conduct pursuant to it, including whether resolution of those issues is required where claims for declaratory judgment were withdrawn and the determinations are not necessary to resolution of the claims and would involve unnecessary determination of constitutional issues; qualified immunity, including proper identification of the right that must be clearly established and breached to overcome qualified immunity; and severance of trials, where one plaintiff must only prove damages, but the other plaintiffs must prove liability and damages) 12/01/2010 - Hussaini v. Gelita USA, Inc. 9Labor/Employment discrimination, suit by former employee against former employer alleging Iowa common law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, promissory estoppel, and fraudulent misrepresentation; analysis of whether plaintiff’s state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. 11/04/2010 - Dong & Lowery v. Royal Crown Insurance Corp. : (Action arising from the plaintiff insureds’ claims that their insurer failed to defend them against third-party claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which insurer has also filed a counterclaim for indemnity and contribution against the insured who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident, because he was intoxicated; motions for summary judgment by both the insurer and the insureds: statutory preemption of common-law claims; improper assignment of statutory claim; insurer’s duty to defend notwithstanding an DUI Exclusion Clause in the policy; and authorizations for and bars to the counterclaim to recover from the intoxicated insured; court’s summary judgment sua sponte on private action pursuant to statute barred by a decision of the Commonwealth Supreme Court after this case was filed) 10/18/2010 - Dorr v. Weber, et al. (Plaintiff Paul Dorr is a prevailing party within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and, therefore, is entitled to an award of some reasonable amount in attorneys’ fees. After a line-by-line review of the fee application, the court decided that the fees claimed should be reduced for time not reasonably expended, further reduced by ten percent for “block billing,” and an additional ten percent “penalty” reduction for a wildly over-inflated fee request. Therefore, the court awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to Paul Dorr in the amount of $51,744.26, and additional costs and expenses to Paul in the amount of $2,430.60.) 09/30/2010 - Dollar v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., et al (Employment discrimination, suit by employee against former employer alleging violates the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, cross-motions for partial summary judgment; analysis of whether plaintiff could establish that she suffered from a serious health condition; analysis of whether plaintiff could establish she provided employer with notice and her need for FMLA leave, and, examination of whether plaintiff suffered any damages recoverable under the FMLA as a result of her employer’s firing her.) 09/15/2010 - Leventhal v. Schaffer (Events on RAGBRAI 2005 led to plaintiff William Eugene Leventhal’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for unlawful arrest, ultimately resulting in a three-day bench trial against defendant Sergeant Daniel Schaffer. Leventhal established that Schaffer violated his Fourth Amendment rights, because Schaffer lacked probable cause in arresting Leventhal for cursing and pointing his finger at Schaffer. Nevertheless, Leventhal did not win his lawsuit, because the court found that Schaffer was entitled to qualified immunity.) 09/09/2010 - Farm-To-Consumer-Legal Defense Fund, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al (Advocacy group’s action challenging Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring “milk” in final package form for beverage use to be pasteurized or ultrapasteurized and prohibiting the delivery into interstate commerce of any milk in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized; defendants’ motion to dismiss: standing, ripeness, foreclosure by Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594 (1950), and administrative exhaustion requirements) 08/18/2010 - The Estate of Brock C. Pigorsch, et al v. York College v. Harlan Jacobsen d/b/a Video Mania & Eugene Camillocci (tort diversity action concerning motor vehicle accident; defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment: conflict-of-law question concerning whether Iowa, Kansas or Nebraska law was applicable to the substantive legal questions presented in the case; using the choice-of-law rules of the forum state-Iowa, and applying Iowa’s “most significant relationship” test to determine conflict-of-laws questions, the court concluded that Iowa law is applicable to the substantive legal questions presented in the case 08/18/2010 - Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services (Advocacy group’s action challenging Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring “milk” in final package form for beverage use to be pasteurized or ultrapasteurized and prohibiting the delivery into interstate commerce of any milk in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized; defendants’ motion to dismiss: standing, ripeness, foreclosure by Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594 (1950), and administrative exhaustion requirements) 08/18/2010 - Aventure Communications Technology LLC v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al (Action by a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) for a preliminary injunction enjoining action to enforce an order of the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) concerning “high volume access service” (HVAS), including conference bridges, chat lines, help desks, and other services based upon a high volume of incoming and outgoing calls, and motions by interexchange carriers (IXCs) to intervene: application of Rule 24(a)(2) standards to motions to intervene as of right based on participation in administrative rule-making proceedings and application of the Dataphase factors to the CLEC’s motion for preliminary injunction.) 08/17/2010 - Hauth v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (ERISA, judicial review of the denial of a claim for life insurance benefits under a group life insurance policy, analysis of whether insurer’s decision to deny life insurance benefits was reasonable, that is, supported by substantial evidence.) 08/10/2010 - The Prudential Insurance Co. of America, et al v. Inlay (Action by insurance company against former agent seeking temporary restraining order pending FINRA arbitration action to address claims of breach of confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements, misappropriate of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantages, and conversion; whether FINRA Arbitration Rule 13804 permitting a party to arbitration to seek a “temporary injunctive order” in court permits the court to enter a “preliminary injunction” or only a “temporary restraining order,” whether the Dataphase factors warranted a temporary injunction on the former agent’s conduct) 07/28/2010 - McFarland v. McFarland (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion for summary judgment; determination of whether the court should delay consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), until plaintiff has completed discovery in the case; analysis under Iowa law of whether witness, who provided affidavit as part of a divorce proceeding, enjoys an absolute privilege for those statements made in the course of the dissolution litigation.) 07/26/2010 - Hoskins v. Snap-On Incorporated Retirement Plan (Plaintiff Dean Hoskins appealed Defendant Snap-On Incorporated Retirement Plan’s denial of disability retirement benefits, and Hoskins requested the assessment of a penalty for Snap-On’s failure to provide Plan documents; the court held that Snap-On’s decision not to award disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence and ordered Snap-On to award Hoskins disability benefits; the court also assessed Snap-On a penalty for failing to timely produce Plan documents.) 07/20/2010 - Turner v. U.S. (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting as grounds that the prosecution violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose police reports that contained material which could have been used to impeach the police officers and that he was provided with ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Motion denied in its entirety: first, petitioner, by entering a plea of guilty, waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction based on claims that his counsel was ineffective in his handling of the suppression hearing, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the Indictment’s 21 U.S.C. § 860 charge, and that the prosecution’s failure to disclose the police reports was a Brady violation; second, petitioner could not relitigate in his § 2255 motion his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge petitioner’s armed career criminal designation since that issue was raised and decided on appeal; and, finally, petitioner could not demonstrate that his counsel’s conduct fell below the wide range of reasonable professional assistance in failing to object to prosecution’s § 851 notice of enhanced penalties, or that but for counsel’s failure to object to the prosecution’s § 851 notice, the result of the proceedings would have been any different.) 07/15/2010 - Dorr v. Weber: (The court held a one day bench trial on Plaintiff Paul Dorr and Plaintiff Alexander Dorr’s claims that Defendant Sheriff Weber’s denial of their applications for concealed weapons permits was in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association; the court found that Sheriff Weber’s asserted reasons for denying the permits were credible; the court found that Sheriff Weber had denied Paul Weber’s application in retaliation for his engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment, which included writing letters to the editor and distributing flyers; the court found that Sheriff Weber denied Plaintiff Alexander Dorr’s application due to Sheriff Weber’s belief that permits should not be issued to individuals under 21 years of age, which was not in violation of the First Amendment; the court provided declaratory relief to Paul Dorr, declaring Sheriff Weber’s denial of Paul Dorr’s application to constitute First Amendment Retaliation; the court ordered injunctive relief and required Sheriff Weber to immediately issue Paul Dorr a concealed weapons permit; the court ordered further remedial relief in requiring Sheriff Weber to take a class concerning the First Amendment.) 07/07/2010 - Kliment v. Astrue (The court granted Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); however, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, --- S.Ct. ---, 2010 WL 2346547 (2010), the court awarded the fees to the Plaintiff, rather than awarding them directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.) 06/15/2010 - McFarland v. McFarland, et al. (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion for summary judgment; analysis under Iowa law of whether an expert, who offered her opinion regarding the need for structured, supervised child visitation as part of a divorce proceeding, enjoys an absolute privilege for those statements made in the course of the dissolution litigation.) 06/04/2010 - Aquino v. San Nicolas, et al.: (Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Plaintiff was held for 88 days after serving a one year sentence for possessing an illicit substance, despite her having had stipulated to her immediate deportation; the court held that the 88 day detention did not violate Plaintiff’s Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Commonwealth Covenant applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Northern Mariana Islands as if it were one of the states, pursuant to United States Supreme Court precedent finding such a detention to be presumptively reasonable; the court also held that this presumptively reasonable period of detention was not “outrageous” conduct, which caused Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim to fail; the court grated Defendants’ motions to dismiss but provided Plaintiff with leave to amend her complaint) 05/27/2010 - Dorr v. Weber (Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated persons, challenge denials of their applications for nonprofessional permits to carry weapons on the ground that the denials violated their constitutional rights to bear arms, to due process, and to equal protection, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; cross motions for summary judgment; analysis of whether defendant sheriff’s is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, analysis of whether plaintiffs whether plaintiffs were similarly situated to persons who allegedly received favorable treatment, analysis of whether plaintiffs could a causal connection between defendants’ retaliatory animus and the denial of their gun permits sufficient to establish their First Amendment retaliation claims, examination of whether plaintiff had a property right to gun permit when local authorities have discretion to deny such a permit) 05/18/2010 - Bernadita Aldan & Miguel Aldan v. World Corporation (Slip-and-fall action under CNMI law on diversity jurisdiction: plaintiffs’ motion to amend complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages, pursuant to Rules 15 and 16, after the deadline for amendments in the scheduling order: diligence of the plaintiffs in attempting to discover the new information on which the proposed amendment was based and in filing the motion to amend after actually discovering that new information, prejudice to the defendant of reopening discovery, and futility of the amendment as failing to put the defendant on notice of the claim for punitive damages) 04/30/2010 - Kliment v. Astrue (Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that he was not disabled; Plaintiff claimed that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination at step three, of the familiar five-step analysis, that Kliment did not meet or equal the conditions in Listing 12.05(C) and, specifically, that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s failure to find a second medically determinable impairment under Listing 12.05(C), that the ALJ failed to pose a hypothetical question to the Vocational Expert witness that clearly presented a set of limitations that mirrored Kliment’s, and that the ALJ failed to determine and communicate a residual functional capacity specific enough to determine if Kliment is disabled; the court found, as did Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss, that there was not substantial evidence in the record for the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled under Listing 12.05(C) and that the ALJ posed an improper hypothetical question to the VE; however, the court also agreed with Judge Zoss that there was not overwhelming evidence that Plaintiff was disabled under Listing 12.05(C), as Plaintiff had claimed in his objection to Judge Zoss’s Report and Recommendation; the case is remanded for further consideration of whether Plaintiff meets Listing 12.05(C) and for a reassessment of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity) 04/28/2010 - SmithCo Manufacturing, Inc. v. Haldex Brake Products Corporation : (Action arising from the substitution by the defendant of a different air control valve for the one that the defendant had previously supplied, which the plaintiff uses in the air suspension system of the side-dump trailers that it manufactures; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: after voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence claim, and denial of leave to amend to assert express warranty and promissory estoppel claims, the only question was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim on the ground that the plaintiff never informed the defendant, and the defendant had no reason to know, of the particular purpose for which the plaintiff intended to use the valve) 04/28/2010 - Kim v. Quichocho, et al. : (Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims 1 through 3, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), for allegedly failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), where fraud had been alleged; the court found that the RICO claims should be dismissed, if they are not properly amended, for failing to properly allege predicate acts of racketeering activity; although the plaintiff alleged wire fraud and money laundering as predicate acts of racketeering activity, the wire fraud was not pled with particularity under Rule 9(b) and the money laundering, which requires its own predicate act of specified unlawful activity, could not rely on wire fraud as a predicate act of specified unlawful activity because of Rule 9(b) and the other alleged unlawful activity was not unlawful activity under the definition of specified unlawful activity; the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint within 90 days; failure to properly amend the complaint will result in dismissal without prejudice.) 04/20/2010 - Johnson v. U.S.(§ 2255 motion by defendant convicted of capital charges of murders while working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise: respondent’s motion for psychiatric examinations of the petitioner: the applicable discovery rule for mental examinations, via Habeas Rule 6(a), is Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements of Rule 35, including whether the respondent was required to meet those requirements as to categories of mental conditions and categories of tests, or as to specific mental conditions and specific tests; Fifth and Sixth Amendment concerns and requirements for reports) 03/18/2010 - Kitterman v. Coventry Health Care of Iowa, Inc.(action for judicial review of denial of health insurance benefits pursuant to ERISA: whether the plaintiffs are responsible for any more than $8,000 of the medical expenses in question, as that is the amount identified in the plan as the annual “out-of-pocket maximum” for an individual for treatment from “non-participating providers,” where the insurance company declined to pay medical expenses totaling almost three times that amount, on the ground that various costs do not “apply” to the “out-of-pocket maximum”) 03/15/2010 - Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company : (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: motions, after jury verdict finding infringement and court’s entry of permanent injunction, concerning infringer’s compliance with permanent injunction: infringer’s motion to modify permanent injunction, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) (last clause), based on three purported “design arounds” and for refund of royalties paid based on the first “design around”; patent holder’s motion, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the permanent injunction, for a further accounting and payment of a further royalty at a further enhanced rate based on assertion that “design arounds” still infringe the patent-in-suit) 03/08/2010 - McFarland v. McFarland, et al. Diversity action for slander, libel, and defamation; motion to dismiss; analysis under Iowa law of whether an attorney, who is representing party in a divorce proceedings, is entitled to immunity from suit based on the judicial proceeding privilege. 02/26/2010 - Wellenstein v. Astrue ((Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that he was not disabled; Plaintiff claimed that the ALJ failed to give enough weight to the opinions of certain medical sources, failed to fully and fairly develop the record concerning his physical and mental limitations, and failed to make a proper assessment of his credibility; this court found, as did Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss, that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and ordered remand; Judge Zoss had found that the ALJ inadequately assessed the credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and that further development of the record was appropriate, as did this court; counter to Judge Zoss’s findings, this court found that the ALJ improperly analyzed the weight to be given to certain medical sources and required a reassessment on remand) 02/24/2010 - Johnson v. Fed Ex Corporation (Motion for Summary Judgment; the plaintiff sues her employer for sex discrimination and retaliation (plaintiff did not resist the defendant’s motion as to the retaliation claims) under Title VII and the ICRA; the plaintiff claims that she was treated differently than an allegedly similarly situated co-worker when she was terminated, and later reinstated without full back pay, while the co-worker was not disciplined; both plaintiff and co-worker had used company materials for personal use without obtaining prior permission to do so; the defendant claimed, in its motion, that the plaintiff and the co-worker were not similarly situated for various reasons, including due to the co-worker’s alleged self-reporting of his use of materials and offer to reimburse the company for the materials he used; the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the parties were similarly situated) 01/26/2010 - Fikse v. Hall (State agency employee’s action for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA against the agency’s director in his official, defendant’s motion for summary judgment, analysis of whether the summary judgment record generated a genuine issue of material fact as to circumstantial evidence of age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis.) 01/25/2010 - McFarland v. McFarland (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion to dismiss; analysis under Iowa law of whether plaintiff had adequately pleaded factual allegations supporting his conspiracy claim such that defendants could be held liable for the foreseeable conduct of each co-conspirator, consideration of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s pleadings of the underlying torts in the amended complaint, and analysis of whether defendant’s statements about plaintiff were absolutely privileged under Iowa law.) 01/19/2010 - Maldonado v. U.S. (2255 motion for post-conviction relief: claims of improper use of an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, also without an interpreter, to enhance a federal sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise that claim at sentencing or on direct appeal to overcome procedural default of that claim and as a claim for relief, and ineffective assistance of counsel leading to forfeiture of the third level reduction for acceptance of responsibility) 01/15/2010 - Shannon v. Koehler, et al. : (Motion for Summary Judgment; the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which requested dismissal of all plaintiff’s claims – the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based the officer’s alleged use of excessive force in arresting the plaintiff, because the record, which contained a surveillance tape, left unresolved several disputes, such as whether the plaintiff made physical contact with the officer before the officer took him down and whether the officer discontinued his use of force once the plaintiff submitted to arrest or was otherwise subdued; the defendants’ motion was also denied as to their claim that the City and Police Chief were not liable under § 1983, as the court found genuine issues of material fact concerning whether there was a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct, whether the Police Chief showed deliberate indifference or tacit authorization of misconduct due to his allegedly having notice of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failing to act on them, and whether these actions were the moving force behind the officer’s alleged use of excessive force on the plaintiff; the court found genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the officer was liable for assault and battery under Iowa law, and whether the City and Police Chief were liable for assault and battery under a respondeat superior theory.) 12/04/2009 - McFarland v. McFarland, et al. (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion for summary judgment; analysis under Iowa law of whether a court-appointed individual, who was ordered to conduct a child custody evaluation as part of divorce proceedings, is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit) 11/02/2009 - Schott v. Care Initiatives (Former employee’s age discrimination claim pursuant to the ADEA and Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA): defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment: court addressed a question ante concerning the governing law, concluding that the “but for” causation standard for ADEA claims established in Gross v. FBL, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009), does not apply to ICRA claims, in light of reiteration of “motivating factor” causation standard in Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2009)) 10/15/2009 - Bodeans Cone Company, LLC, et al v. Norse Dairy Systems, LLC & Interbake Foods, LLC : (Antitrust action for injunctive relief and damages by one maker of novelty cones and ice cream sandwich wafers against another maker: plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of purportedly privileged documents, evidence of the parties’ future market shares, a list of makers of novelty ice cream products, correspondence with the Iowa Attorney General about an antitrust complaint against the defendant, and evidence of the principal’s vacation home; defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of customer responses to a survey conducted by a third-party consulting firm.) 10/06/2009 - Arrington v. Richardson, et al. (Motion to Dismiss; the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss; finding that plaintiff may enforce the federal rights created by the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq., under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; although Congress included a remedial scheme in the Act, the court found that the scheme complemented § 1983 enforcement and was not intended to supplant § 1983.) 10/01/2009 - Schmitz v. Upper Des Moines Opportunity, Inc. (Employment discrimination, motion for partial summary judgment, analysis of plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for whether defendant was acting under color of state law when it terminated plaintiff’s employment, examination of whether defendant was a political subdivision of the State of Iowa as required under Iowa’s whistleblower statute, Iowa Code §70A.29, and determination of whether court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining Iowa common law claim and dismiss it.) 09/22/2009 - Hart v. Baldwin, et al. (Motion for Summary Judgment; the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to “properly exhaust” his remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), as there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether his grievance was timely filed—plaintiff failed to comply with the prison system’s rule that grievances must be filed within thirty days of incident about which the prisoner is complaining.) 09/22/2009 - Armstrong, et al. v. Amercan Palltt Leasing, Inc. et al. (Securities litigation, motions to dismiss concerning claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, both the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78, as well as state common law claims; analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) as to whether plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against defendant bank derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are of the type which ordinarily would be brought in a single lawsuit so as to give the court supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state law claims against bank; decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) concerning whether RICO § 1965(b) and/or § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, creates nationwide service of process permitting the court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants; analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) concerning whether plaintiffs’ RICO claims are based on securities fraud as predicate acts and thus barred by § 107 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1965; determination of whether plaintiffs sufficiently pled claims under sections 10(b), 18 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78r(a), 78t(a) and sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77l; review of the adequacy of plaintiffs’ pleadings concerning state law claims for conversion, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentations or nondisclosures, and fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions.) 08/26/2009 - In re Robert K. Miell (appeal by Chapter 11 debtor, facing sentencing on federal criminal charges and tax litigation, from the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to hire attorneys and to pay them from the estate: whether 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) can be used to provide a mechanism for payment of a debtor’s attorneys from the bankruptcy estate in a Chapter 11 case in the same way that 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B) might provide for payment of attorneys from the bankruptcy estate in Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 cases.) 08/19/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance Co. et al v. Lincoln Natinal Life Insurance Co. (Bill of Costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920; the court decides whether the prevailing party should have deposition and document discovery costs apportioned, due to the risk of impermissible double recovery resulting from the anticipated use of the same depositions and document discovery in the other trial; the court also determines whether third party technology vendor consultant’s fees, travel, lodging, and food expenses are properly considered “exemplification” costs under § 1920; the court holds that (1) deposition and document discovery costs should not be apportioned due to a second pending trial but that such costs incurred before the commencement of the suit are not compensable, and (2) third party technology vendor consulting fees are properly considered “exemplification” costs under § 1920 and were necessarily incurred due to the complexity of the case but that the consultant’s travel, lodging, and food expenses are not compensable) 08/17/2009 - Roberts et al. v. USCC Payroll Corporation & Stephanie Hood (Employment discrimination, motion for summary judgment, analysis of whether plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, examination of whether plaintiffs generated a genuine issue of material fact that the reason defendants proffered for terminating them was pretextual, specifically whether they could make out the necessary showings that they were treated differently than similarly situated younger employees where they were fired after an investigation revealed that plaintiffs had violated a company policy that prohibited employees from working on the accounts of friends and family members; and determination of whether the granting of summary judgment constituted an unconstitutional violation of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. ) 07/17/2009 - Settell v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.: (claimant’s action against insurer and claim administrator for judicial review of denial of long-term disability benefits under ERISA plan: decision on the merits: claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) alleging improper denial of benefits, in light of opinions of treating physicians and the insurer’s consulting physicians; claim for imposition of a penalty pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) for failure to provide plan documents, including propriety of such a penalty against an insurer that was not the plan administrator) 07/14/2009 - Dorr v. Weber, et al. (Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated persons, challenge denials of their applications for nonprofessional permits to carry weapons on the ground that the denials violated their constitutional rights to bear arms, to due process, and to equal protection, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; motion to dismiss by the county sheriff’s department and the sheriff’s “successors”: sufficiency of allegations of facts making it plausible that the county sheriff’s department had the power to make and enforce any rules and regulations, independent of the Sheriff, such that it might, itself, have the power to sue or be sued concerning the exercise of such power, and was not merely an instrumentality of the sheriff; necessity of including the sheriff’s “successors” as parties to ensure effective injunctive relief) 07/07/2009 - Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, et al. (State agency employee’s action for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA against the agency and the agency’s director, in his official capacity: defendants’ motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds: whether the ADEA abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity; whether the state agency waived Eleventh Amendment immunity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1), by accepting federal funding; whether a state official, sued in his or her official capacity, has Eleventh Amendment immunity to a claim for prospective injunctive relief from violations of the ADEA; whether the plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief against the state official is adequately pleaded) 07/02/2009 - Beekman v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Motion for Summary Judgment; plaintiff sues former employer, alleging that the employer interfered with her ability to take Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave on several occasions, retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA when it terminated her, and wrongfully discharged her in violation of the public policy set out in Iowa’s workers’ compensation laws, Iowa Code Chapter 85; employer’s motion for summary judgment: seeks dismissal of FMLA interference claims occurring outside of two year statute of limitations typically applicable to FMLA violations; disputes whether plaintiff 1) was entitled to FMLA leave on the dates in question, 2) had provided the Company with adequate and timely notice of her need for FMLA leave, and 3) had followed the Company’s call-in procedures; concerning both the FMLA retaliation and common law wrongful discharge claims, the Company alleges that Beekman cannot demonstrate a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination; the Company also alleges, in respect to both claims, that Beekman cannot prove that its articulated reason for the discharge was pretextual; the Company claims that Beekman was not an at-will employee, because of her union membership and the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the Company, and therefore is not entitled to the protections of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine) 06/25/2009 - Accurate Controls, Inc. v. Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors, et al.: (Action pursuant to Iowa Code Ch. 573 by sub-subcontractor for electronic security systems for a new county jail to recover payment from the general contractor, the contractor’s surety, and the county board of supervisors after the electrical subcontractor that directly employed the sub-subcontractor defaulted: parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment: diversity subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts to hear an action where a state statute lays venue in the court of a particular county; timeliness of an Iowa Code Ch. 573 action; applicability of § 573.15, which requires detailed notice to a general contractor of “claims for material furnished,” to an entity that provided both material and labor; adequacy of invoices provided to subcontractor and forwarded to general contractor with subcontractor’s pay application to provide required notice to the general contractor of a claim for material furnished by a sub-subcontractor; available damages under Chapter 573; and continued viability of a Chapter 573 action against a county board that had released the retainage on payments to the general contractor upon completion of the project) 06/18/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: post-trial motions after jury trial on infringement and invalidity issues: alleged infringer’s motion for JMOL pursuant to Rule 50(b); alleged infringer’s alternative motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a); prevailing patent holder’s motion for prejudgment interest; prevailing patent holder’s motion for permanent injunction) 06/08/2009 - Precision Press, Inc. d/b/a Anderson Brothers Printing Co. v. MLP USA, Inc. (Contract law, motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay pending arbitration; dispute over whether arbitration clause in sales agreement for commercial printer required dismal or stay of case; analysis of whether state or federal law governs the dispute; examination of whether Federal Arbitration Act applies to sale agreement’s arbitration clause, review of whether that arbitration agreement constituted an agreement to arbitrate the issues involved in the litigation; and determination of whether dismissal of case, as opposed to a stay pending arbitration, was permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act.) 06/01/2009 - B& D Land and Livestock Co. v. Ed Schafer (B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Schafer (Judicial review of administrative action by the USDA finding a wetland “conversion” in violation of the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24: plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and costs under EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as a “prevailing party”: determination of whether government’s position was “substantially justified” and whether “special circumstances” might make a fee award unwarranted; determination of appropriate hourly rate based on cost of living increases and “special factors” consisting of counsel’s expertise in the area of wetlands law and the lack of other lawyers in this district with the distinct knowledge that this litigation has required; whether hours claimed for a preliminary injunction motion were necessary in light of assurances that the government would not deny farm program benefits during the pendency of the judicial review action) 05/21/2009 - Moriarity v. Astrue (Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that she was not disabled; the Appeals Council had denied she was disabled even though she provided them, but not the ALJ, with a medical report containing opinions from her treating physician. The court applied the framework governing a district court’s reveiew when evidence is provided to the Appeals Council but not the ALJ, as explained in Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 1994) and remanded the case for further development of the record.) 05/13/2009 - The Hamlin Group, LLC v. Third Generation Investments, et al. & Third Generation Investments v. Clocktower Development, LLC (commercial dispute over promise to transfer property for development involving, inter alia, claims of breach of contract and fraud: plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2): sufficiency of grounds for and factors pertinent to voluntary dismissal; meaning of portion of rule permitting voluntary dismissal, over defendant’s objections, when a counterclaim is pending, “only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication”; relevance of third-party claim to voluntary dismissal analysis; sua sponte consideration of whether leave to assert third-party claim was improvidently granted, for failure to comply with Rule 14, and sua sponte dismissal of third-party claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because third-party claim, properly construed as claim for Rule 19 required joinder of necessary party, would deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction) 05/05/2009 - Stillmunkes, et al. v. Givaudan Flavors, Corp. et al (Diversity products liability action, consolidation of cases for trial, addressing issue of whether to consolidate two cases for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), considering whether a common question of law or fact exists in these cases, whether the risk of prejudice to defendants, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, and the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one.) 04/10/2009 - Blood et al v. Givaudan Flavors Corporation, et al (Diversity products liability action, consolidation of cases for trial, addressing issue of whether to consolidate two cases for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), considering whether a common question of law or fact exists in these cases, whether the risk of prejudice to defendants, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, and the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one) 04/10/2009 - Tokheim v. Georgia-Pacific Gypsum. LLC (Employment discrimination action; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: issue of whether plaintiff’s claims were barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel for her failure to disclose her claims against defendant to the bankruptcy court at any time during the pendency of her prior Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding in that court even though she was under an affirmative duty to do so; analysis of three factors governing whether to apply the doctrine in case: (1) whether plaintiff’s position in this court was “clearly inconsistent” with her earlier position in bankruptcy court; (2) whether plaintiff had succeeded in persuading a court to accept her earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in this court would create “the perception that either the first or the second court was misled”; and (3) whether plaintiff would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped; examination of whether plaintiff’s contention that she should not be subject to judicial estoppel in this case since her failure to inform the bankruptcy court of her claims against defendant was inadvertent because she informed her bankruptcy attorney of the claims and relied upon her bankruptcy attorney’s advice. 03/31/2009 - Leventhal v. Sgt. Daniel Schaffer, et al. ((Motion for Summary Judgment; defendants move for summary judgment on all remaining claims, court grants motion regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for excessive force and Iowa Tort Claims Act, denies motion regarding § 1983 claim for unlawful arrest as the court found both a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether defendant had probable cause to arrest Leventhal and whether defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.) 03/24/2009 - U.S. v. Michael Alan Reed, et al (Federal income tax enforcement action, cross-motions for summary judgment, analysis of whether the United States was in default because it had not filed a response to defendant’s answer, determination of whether defendant had satisfied his outstanding tax liabilities by submitting bonds in payment to the United States, analysis of whether summary judgment should be granted against defendant for the assessments of unpaid taxes and penalties) 03/23/2009 - McFarland v. McFarland, Groenendyk & Robin's School of Dance & Tumbling (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion to dismiss for lack of diversity; analysis of plaintiff’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.) 03/17/2009 - Farmers Cooperative Company v. Swift Pork Company & LOL Finance Company (Action by a local farm cooperative to recover a pig producer’s unpaid feed bill from the purchaser of the producer’s pigs and the producer’s finance company for disregarding the cooperative’s agricultural supply dealer’s lien pursuant to Iowa Code Ch. 570A; cross-motions for summary judgment, inter alia, on the statute of limitations applicable to the cooperative’s claim: whether the applicable statute of limitations for the cooperative’s claims is Iowa Code § 614.1(4) (five years) or Iowa Code § 614.1(10) (two years); if the applicable statute of limitations is § 614.1(10), whether the finance company is equitably estopped to assert the statute of limitations defense by alleged representations that the cooperative would be paid for the pig producer’s unpaid feed bill) 03/16/2009 - Blood, et al v. Givaudan Flavors, Corp. et al (Diversity products liability action, motions to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity, addressing issue of whether plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent concealment were pleaded with requisite particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).) 03/09/2009 - Ronald & Conley Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc. (Motion in limine; products liability tort action alleging causes of action for negligence and a combined claim for loss of consortium and medical expenses as a result of plaintiff’s exposure to butter flavorings at his place of employment; considering whether to permit evidence of the following: plaintiff’s living conditions, evidence of claims by consumers or of the alleged risks to consumers; evidence regarding the health conditions of other company employees; evidence regarding defendant’s employees; evidence of other cases brought against or resolved by defendant; evidence of other allegedly hazardous products or substances; evidence regarding lung transplantation; cumulative evidence regarding medical condition, diagnosis, prognosis and causation; non-medical opinions of expert; argument that an unpublished a 1993 study provided notice to defendant; evidence regarding prior litigation concerning a related product; evidence or argument that there is no safe level of exposure to diacetyl; evidence or argument regarding Iowa’s law on the allocation of punitive damages; and, evidence regarding the net worth or financial condition of defendant. ) 02/07/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company: (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: patent holder’s motion to strike exhibits and witnesses purportedly previously excluded by the court or that were not disclosed in compliance with orders of the court) 01/29/2009 - Harker's Distribution, Inc. v. Reinhart Foodservice, LLC (action for declaratory judgment concerning calculation of purchase price following defendant’s acquisition of plaintiff’s customers in Illinois and Wisconsin: defendant’s motion to compel arbitration: whether a clause in the parties’ asset purchase agreement requiring submission of disputes about adjustments to the purchase price to a national accounting firm acceptable to both parties constituted an enforceable agreement to arbitrate) 01/20/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance v. Lincoln National Life Insurance (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: parties’ motions in limine: evidence of the PTO’s ex parte reexmination of the patent-in-suit; evidence of “commentary” from the court’s claim construction ruling; deposition testimony and other evidence of the alleged infringer’s marketing materials; evidence of inadequacies of the PTO, “business method” patents, or “tax planning” patents; evidence of infringement and damages theories that are purportedly erroneous as a matter of law) 01/08/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance v. Lincoln National Life Insurance : (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: parties’ motions in limine regarding experts on Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), relevance, and timeliness grounds) 01/05/2009 - Transamerica Life Insurance Co. et al v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.: (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: nominative defendant’s objection to magistrate judge’s order granting nominative plaintiff’s motion to supplement expert report: standard of review for magistrate judge’s order on non-dispostive matter pursuant to Rule 72(a); standards to supplement under court’s Scheduling Order; supplementation pursuant to Rule 26(e)(2) and under “substantially justified or harmless” standard under Rule 37(c)) 12/18/2008 - Mary Staples & Kathy Walker-Brown v. Delavan Inc. & Greg Allen (Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike; plaintiff employees sue employer and co-workers for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (and co-worker for assault and battery); defendant Employer’s motion for summary judgment seeks dismissal of the sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation claims; plaintiffs’ motion to strike seeks to strike several paragraphs from Employer’s statement of facts for violating Federal Rule of Evidence 412; the court denied the motion to strike and granted in part and denied in part defendant Employer’s motion for summary judgment.) 12/11/2008 - Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: nominative plaintiff’s motions to amend pleadings after deadline in scheduling order based on alleged change in the law for “patent-eligible subject matter” and newly discovered information concerning “inequitable conduct”: Applicability of Rule 15(a) or Rule 16(b) standards; application of Rule 16(b) standards of “untimeliness” and “diligence”; alternative Rule 15(a) analysis) 12/05/2008 - Coe v. Northern Pipe Products, Inc. (Former employee’s quid pro quo sex discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII: defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment: effect of “impeached” or “interested” witnesses’ evidence on summary judgment; actionable sexual advances and connection between such advances and job detriments; degree of biased subordinate’s participation in adverse employment decisions required for “cat’s paw” liability of the employer; which party may invoke a “mixed motives” analysis; vicarious liability for harassment by a “supervisor”; circumstances in which a “retaliation” claim may be based on refusal of a supervisor’s sexual advances; and the employer’s “good faith” efforts as a bar to punitive damages) 12/02/2008 - Schwebach v. United Dairy Workers of LeMars & Wells Dairy, Inc. (Motion for Summary Judgment; defendant Wells Dairy, Inc. claims that plaintiff Gary Schwebach did not exhaust his contractual grievance remedies under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement because he failed to request that defendant United Dairy Workers of Lemars pursue his claim in writing, on an approved form; defendant United Dairy Workers of Lemars had pursued his claim without first requiring the plaintiff to request that they do so in writing, on an approved form; the court decided that plaintiff did exhaust his remedies under the collective bargaining agreement.) 11/25/2008 - Verasun v. Industrial Air Technology Corp. (Products Liability, diversity action involving claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of contract arising from industrial accident where fans installed in ethanol plant failed, forcing a shut down of the plant, cross-motions for partial summary judgment and summary judgment, analysis of whether manufacturer’s price quotation constituted offer, analysis of whether buyer’s responsive purchase order constituted acceptance or acted as counter-offer) 11/25/2008 - Donahue v. New NGC, Inc. (Former employee’s age discrimination claims pursuant to the ADEA and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA): defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment: untimeliness of administrative charge for the ICRA claim; sufficiency of evidence to raise inferences of age discrimination on the ADEA claim under either a RIF or non-RIF analysis) 11/07/2008 - B&D Land and Livestock Co. v. Ed Schafer (B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Schafer (Judicial review of administrative action by the USDA finding a wetland “conversion” in violation of the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24: sufficiency of hearing officer’s consideration of separate requirements of the tripartite definition of “wetland,” requiring “hydric soils,” “hydrophytic vegetation,” and “wetland hydrology”; sufficiency of hearing officer’s consideration of evidence of “saturation”; and sufficiency of hearing officer’s consideration of evidence of “disturbance” of adjacent land) 11/05/2008 - Shannon v. Officer Koehler, et al (Motion to Dismiss Sioux City Police Department; defendant police department claims that it is not an entity suable as such; the court decided that the police department was an appendage of the city and not suable as a separate entity from the city of Sioux City) 10/13/2008 - Vincent Johnson & Julie Johnson v. American Leather Specialties Corp. & Shopko Stores, Inc.(Products liability action; defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment: conflict-of-law question concerning application of Iowa law, the law of the plaintiffs residence and the place where the accident occurred, or Minnesota law, the law of the place where the product was marketed to plaintiffs and sold; having concluded that Iowa law governs in case, addressing plaintiffs’ contention that application of Iowa Code § 613.18(1) constitutes an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution on the ground that the State of Iowa’s enactment of tort reform in § 613.18(1) deprived plaintiffs of previously held causes of action under the common law; addressing whether application of Iowa Code § 613.18(1) constitutes a violation of the Iowa State Constitution’s Inalienable Rights Clause, Iowa Const. art. I, § 1.) 09/29/2008 - Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson (Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; petitioner claims that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated when neither of her two attorneys filed a timely motion to suppress evidence obtained due to her warrantless arrest; the court decided: whether there had been an adjudication on the merits of the probable cause to arrest claim, whether the petitioner had properly exhausted available state remedies, and whether one or both of petitioner’s attorneys had been ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment.) 09/04/2008 - Rattray, et al v. Woodbury County, et al (Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging county jail’s alleged blanket strip-search policy: lead plaintiff’s motion to certify class: prerequisites of Rule 23(a); requirements to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A), to avoid the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, or pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), because the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, including extent to which questions of the existence of grounds for individualized suspicion predominate over questions common to the class, such as the existence and constitutionality of a blanket strip-search policy) 09/02/2008 - Gries, et al v. Standard Ready Mix Concrete, et al. (Declaratory judgment action for determination of benefits due under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; motion for class certification; discussion of the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a); analysis of first requirement of Rule 23(a), that plaintiff show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,” including consideration of: the size of the proposed class, the geographical dispersion of the class members, whether members of a prospective class are able to be identified, the financial resources of the potential class members with regard to their ability to institute individual lawsuits, and the judicial efficiency in certifying a class versus trying individual lawsuits.) 08/22/2008 - Wachovia Securities LLC v. Stanton : (Securities broker-dealer’s action for preliminary injunctive relief pending arbitration before FINRA against former registered representative now employed with competitor: broker-dealer’s motion for temporary restraining order: broker-dealer’s likelihood of success on claims of breach of non-disclosure and non-solicitation provisions of employment contract and violation of the Iowa Trade Secrets Act, and broker-dealer’s showing on the irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest “Dataphase factors”) 08/05/2008 - Johnson v. American Leather Specialties & Shopko v. Ultra Marketing Corporation (Diversity products liability action, motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, applying five factor test the court finds that third-party plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case which would support application of personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant where third-party defendant did not have any bank accounts, property, office, agent, representative or employee in Iowa, and third-party defendant’s contacts to Iowa were limited to its interactions with an Iowa company as a marketing representative to a Chinese distributor which had no involvement with the manufacture or the distribution of the allegedly defective product at the center of this case, the court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant) 07/16/2008 - Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Food Movers International, Inc. (motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, standards for motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), standards for personal jurisdiction analysis, ) 07/08/2008 - Sharp, et al. v. Tyson Foods (Plaintiff employees seek certification of their Rule 23 class action claims under the Iowa Wage Payment and Collection Law, and certification of their section 216(b) collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act; defendant employer resists certification; defendant argues plaintiffs' FLSA claims preempt their IWPCL claims; defendant argues the opt-in procedures of FLSA collective action are inherently incompatible with the opt-out procedures of Rule 23 class action; defendant argues plaintiffs' are not similarly situated under the FLSA to meet the requirements for collective action certification; defendants argue plaintiffs do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 to be certified as a class action) 07/03/2008 - McNeal v. SDG Macerich Properties, L.P., et al. (removed action by African American business owner against owner and managers of a shopping mall pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code § 216.7, for racial discrimination in public accommodations in the leasing of store space and harassment; defendants’ motion in limine seeking to exclude the following categories of evidence: evidence of an allegedly phony signature on one of three originals of a lease; evidence of a subsequent investigation by a city attorney and member of the civil rights commission; evidence of emotional distress of anyone other than the plaintiff; evidence of the plaintiff’s prior attempts to lease space in the mall; evidence of future profits of the plaintiff’s business; and evidence of settlement offers or negotiations; plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking to exclude the following categories of evidence: evidence of the plaintiff’s husband’s previous civil rights litigation; and evidence that the defendants filed suit first by bringing a small claim for unpaid rent) 07/01/2008 - U.S. v. Hawley (Action by the United States pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA) and common law against insurance agent and his agency concerning federal crop insurance policies written for ineligible persons; motions in limine: plaintiff’s motion in limine: admissibility of evidence of reimbursement and payment procedures under reinsurance agreement; defendants’ motion in limine: admissibility of evidence disclosed after the close of discovery; evidence of the defendants’ financial condition; references to “experts”; expert opinions on legal issues and results to reach; evidence that the defendant forged insureds’ names or accepted forged signatures; evidence of other “bad acts”; evidence of memoranda of witnesses’ statements; and evidence of plea agreements of ineligible insureds) 06/23/2008 - In Re Knudsen (Cross-appeals by family farmer debtors and the IRS of the bankruptcy court’s denial of family farmer debtors’ amended plan of reorganization in a Chapter 12 case: whether family farmers, who liquidated their slaughter hogs to convert their farming operation from a farrow-to-finish hog operation to a custom hog-raising operation, can obtain the benefits of 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A), as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), that would allow the taxes generated by the sale of their slaughter hogs to be treated as an unsecured claim against their bankruptcy estate subject to discharge; whether the determination of taxes receiving the beneficial treatment of § 1222(a)(2)(A) should be allocated according to the IRS’s “proration method” or the debtors’ “marginal method”; whether § 1222(a)(2)(A) is applicable to post-petition transactions; and whether post-petition taxes may be treated as administrative expenses of the estate in a Chapter 12 case) 06/12/2008 - Baber v. First Republic Group, LLC & Evan Parks (Action by investor against stock broker and account representative for charging improper mark ups and mark downs on stock transactions; defendants’ motion for summary judgment: whether the parties had a contract requiring the broker to charge only “reasonable” commissions; whether the broker breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by charging “unreasonable” commissions, in the form of mark ups and mark downs; whether the broker was subject to any fiduciary duty to the investor to charge only “reasonable” commissions; whether the broker’s conduct in charging mark ups and mark downs constituted “misappropriation/theft,” which the court construed as whether such conduct constituted “conversion”; and whether the broker’s conduct constituted “fraud,” in the form of fraudulent non-disclosure, under the common law or state or federal securities acts, where the investor asserted that the mark ups and markdowns were only disclosed in a misleading or confusing manner; whether the investor ratified the allegedly wrongful mark ups or mark downs or demonstrated that the were not material by continuing to make trades through the broker after discovering the allegedly unreasonable and fraudulent mark ups and mark downs) 06/06/2008 - The O.N. Equity Sales Company v. Pals, et al. (Action by securities broker-dealer to enjoin NASD arbitration action by investor; broker-dealer’s motion to set aside judgment compelling arbitration and denying preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on “newly discovered evidence” and “fraud”) 05/05/2008 - Wright v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Employment discrimination, motion for summary judgment, analysis of whether plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, specifically whether he could make out the necessary showings that he was meeting employer’s legitimate job expectations or that he was treated differently than similarly situated Caucasian employees where he was fired after a search of the employees automobile revealed controlled substances as well as drug paraphernalia on the employer’s premises, in violation of the employer’s policy against employees’ possessing, using, or selling controlled substances on the employer’s property.) 05/05/2008 - Hinshaw v. Ligon Industries, LLC and Fisher Hydraulics, Inc. (Former employee's action for breach of contract and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law claims; defendants' motion for complete summary judgment; limitations on granting summary judgment on existence of contract issues under Iowa law; legal standards for offer and acceptance under Iowa law; legal standards for contract estoppel defense under Iowa law; whether severance pay is "wages due" under Iowa Code section 91A.3 and thus whether plaintiff can recover liquidated damages under section 91A.8 for the failure to pay severance pay.) 05/05/2008 - U.S. v. Hawley (Action by the United States pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA) and common law against insurance agent and his agency concerning federal crop insurance policies written for ineligible persons; cross-motions for summary judgment: elements of FCA claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (presenting false claim to government officer or employee), (a)(2) (using a false record or statement to get a claim paid or approved), and (a)(3) (conspiracy to defraud the government using false claims) and common-law claims of fraudulent concealment and “mistake of fact”) 04/03/2008 - U.S. v. Hawley : (Action by the United States pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA) and common law against insurance agent and his agency concerning federal crop insurance policies written for ineligible persons; cross-motions for summary judgment: elements of FCA claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (presenting false claim to government officer or employee), (a)(2) (using a false record or statement to get a claim paid or approved), and (a)(3) (conspiracy to defraud the government using false claims) and common-law claims of fraudulent concealment and “mistake of fact”) 04/03/2008 - Transamerica Life Insurance, et al. v. Lincoln National LIfe Insurance Company : (Action by one insurance company seeking declaration of non-infringement of another insurance company’s business method patent for a “method and apparatus for providing retirement income benefits” and the other insurance company’s counterclaims for infringement: ruling after Markman hearing on patent claim construction) 03/10/2008 - Closson v. Astrue (Claimant sought judicial review of Commissioner's denial of Title II and Title XVI benefits; Commissioner objected to Magistrate Judge's recommendation that testimony of vocational expert conflicted with the information in the dictionary of occupational titles; analyzes Social Security Ruling SSR 00-4p) 02/21/2008 - Myers v. Tursso Company, Inc. (Former employee’s action for FMLA discrimination and retaliation; defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that the plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, show that the defendant is equitably estoppel to assert the employee’s ineligibility for FMLA leave: sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence of misrepresentations by the employer based on statements in an employee handbook and FMLA rights poster; sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence that he reasonably relied on any misrepresentation; sufficiency of the evidence that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on any misrepresentation) 02/19/2008 - Bowers v. Astrue (Plaintiff Tamela Bowers sought review of agency decision denying her benefits; magistrate recommended reversing for a finding of a closed period of disability, and remanding for a determination of whether Bowers was entitled to a continual period of disability; Bowers filed objection arguing she was entitled to a continual period of disability; standards for reviewing the agency's determination, magistrate's recommendation, and plaintiff's objection; and standard for assessing whether court can reverse agency for a finding of disability on appeal). 01/24/2008 - B&D Land and Livestock Co. v. Chuck Conner (Judicial review of administrative action by the USDA finding a wetland “conversion” in violation of the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24: plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on enforcement actions: whether the anti-injunction statute prohibiting injunctions on the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) bars a preliminary injunction in this case; whether the plaintiff can show irreparable harm, when the USDA’s counsel has made various representations about continuing the plaintiff’s farm program benefits during the pendency of the action) 01/22/2008 - Gonnerman v. McHan Construction, Inc., et al. (former employee’s action for age discrimination under state and federal law: defendants’ motion summary judgment: whether a statement attributed to the decisionmaker recounted by the employee’s supervisor that the employee was being laid off because he was “too old to do cement work” was admissible “direct” evidence of age discrimination; whether there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants would have made the “same decision” to lay off the plaintiff without regard to his age, where the defendants made a company-wide RIF owing to shortage of work). 10/26/2007 - U.S. v. $138,186.28 (civil forfeiture action; companion case to No. 07cr3001-MWB; ruling on government’s motion for summary judgment; standards for civil forfeiture; whether defendant property is traceable to the interstate transportation of stolen property) 10/24/2007 - Tomlinson v. Burt (State prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254: ruling on motion to dismiss: “substantive” and “procedural” claims of “actual innocence,” procedural default of “due process” and “ineffective assistance of counsel” claims) 09/21/2007 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. & Meril Rivard (patent infringement suit involving patents for “detectable” hypodermic needles for livestock: plaintiff’s petition for attorney fees and expenses after court’s ruling imposing Rule 11 sanctions on the corporate defendant and its attorneys for filing a preliminary injunction motion lacking sufficient evidentiary support and for an improper purpose: reductions of fees claimed for lack of direct relationship to sanctionable action and “block billing,” and a further reduction to an amount sufficient to serve the deterrent purpose of a Rule 11 fee award) 09/19/2007 - The O.N. Equity Sales Company v. Pals, et al. (Securities broker-dealer’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt investors’ arbitration action before the NASD; plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and defendant’s responsive motion to compel arbitration: interplay of Dataphase factors for a preliminary injunction and determination of arbitrability, conditions for arbitrability pursuant to NASD Rule 10301) 09/06/2007 - Jones, et al v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. (Fair Labor Standards Act Case, motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), venue of case proper in either the Southern District of Iowa or the Northern District of Iowa, analysis of factors to be employed in considering a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the court concluded that the balance of these factors supported transferring this case to the Southern District of Iowa and therefore defendant had met its burden to show that transfer of this case was appropriate and the court granted the motion to transfer) 08/30/2007 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. & Meril Rivard (patent infringement suit involving patents for “detectable” hypodermic needles for livestock: claim constructions after Markman hearing) 08/10/2007 - Myers v. Tursso Company, Inc. (former employee’s action for FMLA discrimination and retaliation; plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the defendant employer is equitably estopped to assert that it is not covered by the FMLA, because it does not meet the employee-numerosity requirement at the location where the plaintiff worked: standards for granting summary judgment sua sponte for a non-moving party if the record reveals no genuine issues of material fact; applicability of equitable estoppel to FMLA requirements; sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence of misrepresentations by the employer based on statements in an employee handbook and FMLA rights poster; and sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence that he relied on any misrepresentation.) 07/13/2007 - Kirt v. Fashion Bug (Customer’s right-to-contract race discrimination claim under § 1981: court’s sua sponte reconsideration of order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in light of Green v. Dillard’s, Inc., 483 F.3d 533 (8th Cir. 2007) 07/10/2007 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. ((patent infringement suit; plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defendants and their counsel pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the court’s inherent authority for filing their motion for preliminary injunction, which asserted that the plaintiff was committing false advertising and threatening public safety by selling patented “detectable” hypodermic needles for use on livestock that are not actually “detectable” within the meaning of the meat processing, veterinary, and detectable needle industries: finding violations of Rule 11(b)(3) for filing a motion lacking evidentiary support and Rule 11(b)(1) for filing a motion for an improper purpose, imposing sanctions in the form of part of plaintiff’s attorney fees for litigating the preliminary injunction motion, and imposing such sanctions against the corporate defendant, defendants’ outside counsel, and defendants’ local counsel, but declining to impose other sanctions.) 07/03/2007 - Rohloff v. Metz Baking Co., LLC (former employee’s Title VII and state law claims for pregnancy discrimination a baking company, its holding company, and its plant manager: defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment: plaintiff’s ability to generate genuine issues of material fact on “qualification” and “inference of discrimination” elements of her prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, in light of absenteeism problems; sufficiency of evidence of pretext) 06/12/2007 - Hofmann, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (Diversity Tort Action, motion to remand, review of the principles applicable to a motion to remand and analysis of whether party resisting remand is able prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount) 05/18/2007 - Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux C ity, et al. : (Merchant’s action challenging city ordinances regulating sex shops; court’s sua sponte consideration of sanctions against the city for destruction of records relevant to the litigation after settlement of the case) 05/17/2007 - Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center-Fort Dodge LLC, et al. (former employee’s suit for discharge in violation of Iowa public policy: plaintiff’s third motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of correspondence between the parties’ attorneys concerning discovery of records of other employees of the defendants who had filed workers’ compensation claims and their current employment statuses; defendants’ motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of, reference to, or testimony about any polygraph examination or lie detector test that the plaintiff took in relation to events underlying this matter) 05/09/2007 - Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center -Fort Dodge, LLC, et al. (former employee’s suit for discharge in violation of Iowa public policy: plaintiff’s second motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence regarding any benefits that she has received for her workers’ compensation claims) 05/02/2007 - Horizon Ethanol, LLC, et al. v. Hanson & Akers (Diversity action for breach of covenant not to compete and breach of confidentiality provisions of a non-disclosure agreement; motion to dismiss for lack of diversity; analysis of defendant’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction) 04/30/2007 - General Electric Capital Corp. v. Commercial Services Group, Inc. : (Suit for breach of contract against debt collector by client corporation; plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim of tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts and business relationships: whether plaintiff’s conduct in notifying affected third parties of the termination of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was “wrongful” as required to sustain the counterclaim) 04/26/2007 - Bruning, et al. v. Carroll Community School District (Sex discrimination-alleged sexual harassment of female middle school students; claims for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, violation of plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process Rights, violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through defendants’ permitting plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Constitution of the State of Iowa to be violated, negligence, assault, tortious infliction of severe emotional distress, ruling on motion for summary judgment concerning plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim, equal protection claim, claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX claims, claims brought under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code § 216.9, and Iowa state law tort claims for negligence, premises liability and failure to protect; analysis of school district’s knowledge of the harassment, examination of whether the school district was deliberately indifferent to harassment, review of the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment, analysis of whether the school district was exercising discretionary function in disciplining students and was immune from liability for plaintiffs’ tort claims under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act, Iowa Code § 670.4, examination of whether school district breached a duty to plaintiffs to protect them from student-on-student harassment, and with regard to plaintiffs’ premises liability claim, analysis of whether a genuine issue of material fact had been generated as to whether harm to plaintiffs caused by physical assaults at school was reasonably foreseeable) 04/19/2007 - Parada v. Great Plains Int'l of Sioux City, Inc. (female “service writer’s” suit against diesel truck sales and service company for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, and unequal pay in violation of the Equal Pay Act: defendants’ motion for summary judgment: individual liability under Title VII; challenges to the “unwelcomeness” and “severity” elements of the claim of sexual harassment by supervisors; challenges to the “qualification” and “similarly situated male” elements of the claim of sexual discrimination based on elimination of the plaintiff’s service writer duties and termination of her lead person duties; challenges to the “protected activity” and “causal connection” elements of the claim of retaliation based on elimination or termination of the plaintiff’s duties in response to the plaintiff’s complaints about a male co-worker who would not do work the plaintiff assigned him and who complained about her qualifications; and challenges to the “substantially equal jobs” element of the claim of unequal pay) 04/11/2007 - Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center -- Fort Dodge, LLC, et al. : (former employee’s suit for discharge in violation of Iowa public policy: plaintiff’s first motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of offers to settle and references to dismissed claims) 04/05/2007 - Ideal Instruments v. Rivard Instruments (patent infringement suit involving a false advertising counterclaim pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act: defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction based on allegedly false advertising of plaintiff’s livestock hypodermic needles as “detectable”: consideration of “Dataphase factors” and elements of a false advertising claim to determine whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction requiring a ban on sales and a recall of plaintiff’s “detectable” needles). 03/28/2007 - Kirt v. Fashion Bug, Inc. : (customer’s right-to-contract race discrimination claim under § 1981 and “public accommodations” race discrimination claim under Iowa Code § 216.7 against retail store: defendant’s motion for summary judgment: whether a store manager’s intervention and invitation to an African-American female customer to continue shopping after a store employee’s apparently racially charged diatribe demonstrated that there was no interference with the customer’s right to contract under § 1981 or her right to public accommodations under § 216.7 where the customer left the store without attempting to make a purchase) 03/28/2007 - Premium Iowa Pork, L.L.C. v. Banss Schlacht Und Foerdertechnik, GMBH (suit by meat packing complaing alleging fraudulent inducement to enter into a written agreement for a scalding and dehairing system by defendant; platiniff's motion for entry of default judgment and award of damages under fradulent inducement, breach of oral contract, and promissory estoppel and whether or not the court may award punitive damages or attorney's fees in this action) 03/24/2007 - John MorrCommercial litigation, defendants’ motion to dismiss, conflict of law question concerning application of Iowa law, the law of the majority of the defendants, or South Dakota law, the law designated in the parties’ agreements as controlling, addressing whether contract claims fail as a matter of law because the defendants are not explicitly named in the contracts but were entered by defendants using a trade name or doing business as designation, addressing whether plaintiff stated an unjust enrichment claim against defendants where plaintiff has also pleaded contract claims and did not allege that there is no adequate remedy at law for its claim) 03/05/2007 - Baber v. First Republic Group, LLC (suit by investor alleging improper overcharges by securities broker and its account representative; defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings: whether, as a matter of circuit law, an “introducing broker” and its agent are entitled to enforce an arbitration clause in a contract between an investor and a “clearing broker” to which the “introducing broker” and its agent are not parties, because they are agents of the “clearing broker” or a third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the customer and the “clearing broker”; whether the “clearing broker” is an indispensable party within the meaning of Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to litigation involving claims of fraud based, at least in part, on notices of account activity actually sent by the “clearing broker,” such that the case is subject to arbitration) 02/21/2007 - Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (railway workers union’s action for injunctive and other relief pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, to bar carrier’s introduction of iris recognition technology for attendance and timekeeping purposes: plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and carrier’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction: whether the parties’ dispute is “major” or “minor” within the meaning of the RLA, where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over “minor” disputes, which must instead be determined in binding arbitration) 02/16/2007 - Union Pacific Company v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company (dispute between two railroads over purported agreement to share costs of construction of a rail interchange yard; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: failure of defendant to meet conditions precedent in written contract; failure of defendant to generate genuine issues of material fact on “implied-in-fact” contract claim, whether construed as “quantum meruit,” “promissory estoppel,” or “unjust enrichment” claim) 02/09/2007 - Torgeson v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses) 02/05/2007 - Kuiper v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (Diversity products liability action, motions to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity, addressing issue of whether plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy were pleaded with requisite particularity.) 01/31/2007 - Habben v. City of Fort Dodge, et al. (former employee’s Title VII, § 1981, and state law claims for race and pregnancy discrimination against city, city housing agency, and two housing agency officials: defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment: individual liability under Title VII and § 1981; plaintiff’s ability to generate genuine issues of material fact on race and pregnancy discrimination claims; lack of independent basis for liability of the city) 01/29/2007 - Weimer, et al v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., et al. (Diversity products liability action, motions to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity, addressing issue of whether plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy were pleaded with requisite particularity.) 01/22/2007 - Dr. John's v. City of Sioux City (Challenge to city’s various amended zoning and licensing ordinances regulating “adult entertainment businesses”; store’s motion for further clarification of issues for bench trial) 01/16/2007 - McLeodUSA v. Qwest (litigation between providers of telecommunications services concerning payment for each other’s services; plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ “tort” counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation, conversion, trespass, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligence as duplicative of “contract” counterclaims: ability to plead alternative theories of recovery; sufficiency of pleading of required element that the alleged tortfeasor is in the business or profession of supplying information to support of negligent misrepresentation claims; and requirement that statute or regulation on which a negligence claim is based explicitly or implicitly authorize a private cause of action) 01/16/2007 - Dr. John's v. City of Sioux City (Challenge to city’s various amended zoning and licensing ordinances regulating “adult entertainment businesses”; city’s motion to clarify issues for bench trial) 01/13/2007 - Richmond v. Burt (Federal prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; case initially referred to Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss, who recommended the petition be dismissed on procedural grounds; petitioner filed objections to Judge Zoss’s Report and Recommendation, essentially contending his constitutional claims were not procedurally barred; upon conducting de novo review of petitioner’s claims, court overrules petitioner’s objections and accepts Judge Zoss’s Report and Recommendation; petitioner did not fairly present his constitutional claims to the Iowa courts and even if he had, petitioner’s claims are without merit; petition is dismissed and no certificate of appealability shall be issued.) 01/04/2007 - Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center -- Fort Dodge, LLC, et al (Former employee asserted state and federal disability discrimination claims and two claims of discharge in violation of Iowa public policy; after voluntary dismissal of all claims except for violation of Iowa public policy by retaliating for filing a workers’ compensation claim, the defendant moved for summary judgment: the court considered sua sponte whether to retain the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 after dismissal of the federal claim upon which jurisdiction was premised; considered the elements of a claim of retaliation in violation of public policy under Iowa law, and especially whether proof of a “lack of other justification” for discharge was such an element; and considered the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s showing on the required elements.) 12/22/2006 - Leading Edge Developmental Services v. Enxco, Inc. (Contract law, motions for summary judgment; dispute over whether plaintiff was entitled to an abatement success fee; analysis of whether plaintiff’s refund of certain money paid to it by defendant constituted a condition precedent to plaintiff’s qualifying for the abatement success fee; and, whether the parties had made a mutual mistake as to the date certain that plaintiff was required to make the required refund of money paid to it by defendant. ) 12/21/2006 - Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City (Challenge to city’s various amended zoning and licensing ordinances regulating “adult entertainment businesses”; defendant’s motion to preserve Seventh Amendment right to jury trial: province of court and jury in determination of remaining “constitutionality,” “applicability,” and “damages” issues, applying two-prong inquiry under City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dues at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999)) 12/20/2006 - Torgeson v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America & Mason City Clinic, PC (Judicial review under ERISA concerning eligibility for long-term disability (LTD) benefits: memorandum opinion and order on the merits on written submissions: applicable standard of review; objective evidence; treating physicians’ opinions; and co-morbidity of conditions) 12/06/2006 - Interbake Foods, LLC v. Tomaeillo, et al (Suit by employer against former employee and his current employer alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other confidential information; motion for preliminary injunction; court held (1) federal standards rather than state law standards would be applied to determine whether preliminary injunction should issue; (2) Iowa substantive law applied to the plaintiff’s claims; (3) application of the Dataphase factors requires issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining disclosure of Interbake’s trade secrets by Tomasiello and misappropriation of those secrets by his current employer; (4) application of those same factors does not require issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining Tomasiello’s continued employment with BoDeans as it relates to wafer manufacturing; (5) a preliminary injunction of appropriate scope should issue after the posting of adequate security; (6) plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part, and denied in part.) 11/13/2006 - Galm v. Eaton Corporation (ERISA, judicial review of denial of second-tier long term disability benefits, analysis of whether less deferential review was appropriate, interpretation of the plan and analysis of the factors to be considered, determination of whether there was substantial evidence to support plan administrator’s decision) 11/03/2006 - Jones, et al. v. Winnebago Industries & Kwikee Products Company, Inc. (products liability action; defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment: conflict-of-law question concerning application of Idaho law, the law of the plaintiffs’ residence and the place where the accident occurred, or Iowa law, the law of the place where the principal defendant had its principal place of business and where it designed and manufactured an allegedly defective mechanism for a “slide out” room on a recreational vehicle; plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint: motion for leave to amend complaint to add prayer for punitive damages was intertwined with motion for partial summary judgment on choice of law, where one forum’s law would bar the amendment and the other forum’s law would not) 11/02/2006 - Dr. John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City (Challenge to city’s various amended zoning and licensing ordinances regulating “adult entertainment businesses”; plaintiff’s motion to reconsider ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment; whether plaintiff conceded that only “rational basis” scrutiny applies to non-media provisions of subject ordinances and whether ruling on “civil disability” provisions was without benefit of the plaintiff’s response and based only on dicta in a Supreme Court decision) 10/17/2006 - Fuller v. Alliant Energy (Pro se former employee asserted sex and race discrimination claims under Title VII and disability discrimination under the ADA; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: sufficiency of the employee’s prima facie cases and showings of pretext and intentional discrimination in light of employee’s history of use of bereavement leave and excessive absenteeism) 10/16/2006 - Michael and Anna Belkin v. The Sioux city Community School District and the Western Hills Area Education Agency (disability discrimination under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; judgment on the administrative record; discussion of the standard of review when reviewing a decision of an administrative law judge in an IDEA case; review of the standards for establishing a case of retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; analysis of whether defendants met their burden of providing a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action taken in case and whether plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that defendants' reason was a pretext for discrimination) 10/12/2006 - Orluske v. Mercy Medical Center -- North Iowa (Former employee asserted age discrimination claims under the ADEA and state law and claims of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment of third parties in violation of Title VII and state law against a medical center; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: sufficiency of the employee’s prima facie cases and showings of pretext and intentional discrimination or retaliation) 10/10/2006 - Saeemodarae v. Mercy Health Services -- Iowa Corp., d/b/a Mercy Medical Center (Former employee, a practicing Wiccan, asserted race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and state law against a medical center that claims to have a Roman Catholic identity; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: scope of “religious organization” exemption from claims of religious discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a); whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction to interpret, as a matter of first impression, the scope of the exemption from religious discrimination and retaliation claims for “bona fide religious institutions” under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code § 216.6(6)(b)) 10/06/2006 - United States v. Mark & Zelene Schilling (Action for declaratory judgment by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) against the defendants requesting this court declare the FSA has a valid secured interest in a certain parcel of real property known as the Section 31 farm property; following denial of summary judgment, this court held a bench trial; bench order regarding the merits concludes: (1) the Schillings are unable to establish fraud, misrepresentation or any other independent reason justifying reformation or rescission of the contract; (2) the court is forced, albeit reluctantly, to find in favor of the plaintiff; (3) it is therefore declared, adjudged and decreed that the FSA has a valid mortgage against the Section 31 farm property by reason of the mortgages executed on April 23, 1997 and April 22, 1998; (4) as Counts Two and Three of the plaintiff’s complaint request alternative relief, these counts are hereby denied as moot.) 09/27/2006 - Remmes v. International Flavors & Frangrances, Inc., et al. (Diversity products liability action, motions to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity, addressing issue of whether the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy and whether plaintiff brought his fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy claim within the period permitted by Iowa Code § 614.1(2), considering whether plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy related back to the date that the original petition was filed, consider ing whether fraudulent concealment claim was pleaded with requisite particularity.) 09/26/2006 - Sanchez v. American Popcorn (Employment discrimination, suit by former employee against former employer alleging disability discrimination under both the ADA and under Iowa Code 216 violations of the FMLA; motion for summary judgment; analysis of whether plaintiff could establish as part of her prima facie case under the FMLA that she suffered from a serious medical; analysis of whether plaintiff could establish as part of her prima facie case under the FMLA event though she did not request FMLA leave notice before being terminated; analysis of whether plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA and ICRA, namely whether former employer regarded plaintiff as being unable to work in a broad category of jobs; analysis of whether plaintiff had come forward with sufficient evidence that former employer’s explanation for its employment decision was a pretext for her termination) 09/14/2006 - Pro Edge. Ltd. v. Gue, (action for violation of trade secrets, intentional interference with existing and prospective contracts, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; motion to execute upon injunction security and additional damages, and motion for attorney fees and expenses; discussion of whether motion to execute on the injunction bond was timely; discussion about whether party was limited to amount of the injunction bond, whether party seeking to execute on the injunction bond had mitigated his damages; analysis of what would constitute equitable award in this case and whether attorney fees were recoverable against party seeking preliminary injunction.) 09/13/2006 - Maytag Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Patent infringement action by assignee of patents for plastic washing machine baskets and the process for making them; cross-motions for summary judgment involving validity, infringement, and willful infringement issues; court found two validity issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the “written description” and “enablement” requirements, to be dispositive of the case) 09/08/2006 - U.S. v. Mark Schilling & Zelene Schilling (Action for declaratory judgment by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) against the defendants requesting this court declare the FSA has a valid secured interest in a certain parcel of real property; motion for summary judgment; summary judgment denied; based on choice of law rules, Iowa law governs; although the four corners of the mortgage documentation clearly granted the FSA a valid mortgage over the disputed property, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a mutual mistake occurred and whether the correct parcel of property was accurately identified in the parties’ contract; alternatively, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a unilateral mistake had occurred and if so, whether the mistake was caused by fraud or misrepresentation. ) 08/25/2006 - Kopple v. Schick Farms, Ltd., et al. v. Schoneman, et al. (Contract law, motions for summary judgment; dispute over whether written letter of intent for the purchase of all shares in a closely-held corporation that was signed by both parties constituted an enforceable contract; analysis of whether parties concluded an oral agreement for the purchase of the shares; and, whether the court’s finding that there was no enforceable contract between the parties renders moot defendant/third-party plaintiffs’ claims against real estate broker. 08/24/2006 - Podkovich v. Glazer's Distributors of Iowa, Inc., et al (Suit by former employee against former employer alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pendent state law claims under Iowa Code Chapter 216, and various violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act; motion for summary judgment; summary judgment denied; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff was an “eligible employee” under the FMLA based on the location of her “worksite,”; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendants were estopped from asserting affirmative defense of ineligibility by virtue of their misrepresentations to the plaintiff; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants interfered with plaintiff’s FMLA rights despite the defendants’ proffer of justification; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff for utilizing her FMLA leave; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendants retaliated against the plaintiff for making a complaint of sexual harassment; and genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants retaliated against the plaintiff because she was pregnant; although the defendants advanced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their conduct, the plaintiff adequately alleged pretext where the defendants offered inconsistent explanations as to why the plaintiff was terminated and other evidence in the record indicated the defendants’ proffered explanation lacked credence.) 08/11/2006 - Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City (Challenge to city’s various amended zoning and licensing ordinances regulating “adult entertainment businesses”; cross-motions for summary judgment, motion to reconsider in part the previous summary judgment ruling, and motion to bifurcate trial: constitutionality and applicability of “media” and “non-media” portions of the first round of amendments and damages arising from enforcement of those amendments; bifurcation of trial on “constitutionality” and “damages” questions; and constitutionality of “adult bookstore or adult video store,” “sexual device shop,” and licensing “civil disability” provisions of the second round of amendments) 07/21/2006 - Jensen v. Barlas, et al. (former employee’s suit for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy based on counterclaims asserted by one of the defendants in the former employee’s state lawsuit for pregnancy discrimination and sexual assault; defendants’ motion for summary judgment: “probable cause” and “special injury” elements of malicious prosecution, “improper purpose” element of abuse of process, and relationship of civil conspiracy claim to other tortious conduct.) 07/07/2006 - Van Natta v. Sara Lee Corporation (Plaintiffs filed complaint against Sara Lee Corporation in state district court asserting state law causes of action for the defendant’s alleged wrongful denial of insurance benefits to the plaintiffs under the Sara Lee Corporation Employee Health Benefit Plan; defendant removed to federal court and filed motion to dismiss; defendant alleged the plaintiffs’ claims were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); defendant’s motion to dismiss conditionally granted; plaintiffs claims were preempted under both ERISA 514 and 502; complete preemption under 502 confers removal jurisdiction and operates as an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule; plaintiffs’ claim still require dismissal, however, because of their failure to comply with ERISA-specific pleading requirements; defendant’s motion granted to the extent the plaintiffs must file an amended complaint remedying the identified decencies. ) 06/29/2006 - Remmes v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., et al. (Diversity products liability action; motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; finding that Iowa Supreme Court would recognize civil conspiracy as a basis to support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction under Iowa’s long-arm statute; that plaintiff successfully made out a prima facie case which would support application of the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction; concluding that when defendants joined the alleged conspiracy they purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting activities in Iowa, the forum state; court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over defendants) 06/26/2006 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. & Meril Rivard (Suit involving claims of infringement by the defendants of the plaintiff’s United States patent, non-infringement by the plaintiff of the defendants’ Canadian patent, and various commercial torts; defendants’ motion to reconsider ruling on motion to dismiss to consider alternative motion to stay and plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint: motion to amend should be addressed before motion to reconsider, because it might, and in this case did, moot portions of the motion to reconsider; standards for reconsideration of an interlocutory order and standards for a stay of proceedings: claims of amended complaint that required determination of issue of whether the plaintiff was infringing the defendants’ Canadian patent were stayed pending determination of infringement issue by Canadian court). 06/21/2006 - International Motor Contest Association, Inc. v. Staley, et al. (copyright litigation between sponsors of automobile racing involving copyrights on plaintiff’s contest rules; plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims and to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses of “copyright misuse” and “unclean hands” under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and because they are legally insufficient) 06/19/2006 - Niver v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (action for first-party bad faith for failure to pay workers compensation benefits; plaintiff’s motion for advance ruling on evidentiary issues preceding trial on damages issues only: defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of other bad faith lawsuit against it, its incentive plans for employees, a report of an “in house” doctor, and damages other than emotional distress; plaintiff’s motion to exclude a variety of evidence, including evidence of the defendant’s handling of the plaintiff’s other workers compensation claims, his sexual activities, penalty benefits on workers compensation claims, government benefits such as unemployment compensation, settlement negotiations concerning the bad faith claim, the “good acts” of the defendant, the defendant’s reliance on advice of counsel, and information learned by the defendant after the arbitration hearing) 06/01/2006 - Conrad v. Iowa Central Community College & Robert Paxton (Suit by former employee against the place of her employment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Iowa law; defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss; plaintiff did not resist defendants’ motion for summary judgment in regard to her First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; with respect to defendants’ motion to dismiss, analysis of whether, with the elimination of § 1983 claim, the court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims) 06/01/2006 - Langel v. Burt (Petition for habeas corpus relief from state court conviction under § 2254; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge recommended denying petitioner’s petition; petitioner filed objections to report and recommendation; upon review of magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, the court accepted report and recommendation, concluded that magistrate judge correctly determined that petitioner’s counsel’s performance was not ineffective since petitioner’s waiver of jury trial was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Petitioner did not object to magistrate judge’s recommendation that petition’s counsel recommended the bench trial as a tactical matter, and his performance was not ineffective.) 05/25/2006 - Laffey v. Burt (Habeas petition by state prisoner; petitioner’s objections to report and recommendation on the merits of the petition: alleged insufficiency of the evidence of sexual abuse of children under twelve in violation of due process; alleged Eighth Amendment violation asserting disproportionality between the offenses and two consecutive twenty-five year sentences imposed for them) 05/08/2006 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. & Meril Rivard (Suit involving claims of infringement by the defendants of the plaintiff’s United States patent, non-infringement by the plaintiff of the defendants’ Canadian patent, and various commercial torts; defendants’ motion to dismiss: individual defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted, and forum non conveniens, and to dismiss foreign patent claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, international comity, and abuse of process; corporate defendant’s joinder in motion to dismiss foreign patent claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, international comity, and abuse of process, and to dismiss commercial tort claims for forum non conveniens and failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against corporate defendant on unchallenged claim of infringement of United States patent). 05/08/2006 - Bruning, et al. v. Carroll Community School District, et al. (Sex discrimination-alleged sexual harassment of female middle school students; claims for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, violation of plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process Rights, violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through defendants’ permitting plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Constitution of the State of Iowa to be violated, negligence, assault, tortious infliction of severe emotional distress, and slander, ruling on motion for summary judgment concerning slander claims; analysis of whether statements attributed to defamatory, and alleged to be defamatory, are true and therefore do not support a claim of slander; analysis of whether statements attributed to defendant are protected opinion even if untrue.) 05/03/2006 - Niver v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (action for first-party bad faith for failure to pay workers compensation benefits; plaintiff’s motion for advance ruling on evidentiary issues preceding trial on damages issues only: admissibility of evidence that goes to both liability and damages, particularly punitive or exemplary damages; the plaintiff's ability to use excerpts of videotaped depositions of the insurer's adjustors in his case-in-chief, when those adjustors will be present at the trial; and the extent to which the plaintiff can obtain and present to the jury financial information concerning the insurer's parent company for purposes of punitive damages; defendant’s motion to bifurcate compensatory damages and punitive damages issues for trial: pertinent factors for bifurcation, including prejudice) 05/03/2006 - Lopez & Vellalpondo v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. (Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims of hostile environment sexual harassment and retaliation against their former employer, the defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively for new trial and remittitur of all amounts awarded an evidentiary hearing to determine juror misconduct and new trial; Court held: (1) judgment as a matter of law was not warranted on any of the grounds asserted by the defendant; to accept the defendant’s argument and conclude otherwise would necessarily require this court to weigh the conflicting testimony in the case, an analysis that would be wholly inappropriate on renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; (2) The defendant’s due process claim as to the amount of punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs is rejected; on balance, in light of the factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the punitive damages award of $260,000.00 per plaintiff is reasonable and does not violate the defendant’s due process rights; (3) The defendant’s motion for remittitur of all amounts awarded is denied; there is sufficient evidence to support the imposition of both the compensatory and punitive damages against the defendant in this case and the amounts the jury awarded are neither monstrous nor shocking; (4) A new trial was not warranted on the grounds the jury’s award of punitive damages to the plaintiffs was against the great weight of the evidence or resulted in a miscarriage of justice; and (5) The defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety.) 04/13/2006 - Pro-Edge L.P., et al. v. Gue (Partial motion for summary judgment and motion to dissolve preliminary injunction; motion sought summary judgment with respect to Count I of the plaintiffs’ complaint, which requested injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from violating the non-competition provisions of his employment contract; motion further sought dissolution of the preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from performing any services similar to those he provided while employed by the plaintiffs; defendant contended the plaintiffs could not demonstrate they obtained the defendant’s written consent prior to assigning the employment agreement to a different business entity that resulted from the corporation’s transformation in business structure; plaintiffs argued the defendant’s consent could be inferred by virtue of his consent to the transactions in his capacity as a shareholder, his later ratification of the assignment, and his continued employment; court held that (1) sufficient evidence existed to infer the defendant’s employment agreement was included in the global of transfer of assets to the new business entity; (2) based on the complexity of the transaction, an “assignment” within the meaning of the employment agreement occurred, thereby requiring the defendant’s prior written consent; (3)the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the defendant’s prior written consent had been obtained by relying on the Stock Purchase Agreement and Statement of Unanimous Consent signed by the defendant as a shareholder; (4) the doctrine of ratification was not appropriately applied to the facts of the case; (5) even if a theory of ratification was a viable option in this case, the defendant’s continued employment, in and of itself, is insufficient indicia of ratification; (6) summary judgment is granted with respect to Count I and the preliminary injunction is dissolved based on the plaintiffs’ inability to prevail on the merits of their claim.) 03/07/2006 - Dewey v. Chertoff (action involving a federal employee’s claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: proper defendant for such an action, whether untimeliness of a first report of harassment under 29 C.F.R. § 1014.105(a)(1) bars such a claim, whether the defendant knew or should have known of the harassment, and whether the plaintiff could generate genuine issues of material fact on a causal connection between her report of harassment and her termination where she failed to comply with her employing agency’s request for medical documentation in support of her extended absence) 02/27/2006 - Lopez & Villalpondo v. Armark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. (Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims of hostile environment sexual harassment and retaliation against their former employer, the defendant filed a supplemental motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine juror misconduct and new trial based on information allegedly obtained during an interview with one of the jurors; the defendant contends two female jurors deliberately concealed their sexual abuse during voir dire and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in order to determine whether it received a fair and impartial jury in the trial of this matter (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate allegations of juror misconduct based on concealed bias warranted further investigation; jurors did not deliberately conceal any bias or answer voir dire questions incorrectly; even if answers were dishonest, defendant failed to make a sufficient showing the jurors were motivated by partiality; and considerable doubt existed as to whether jurors’ past experiences with sexual abuse would have supported striking the jurors for cause; (2) even if standard for an evidentiary hearing was satisfied, defendant would be unable to produce evidence not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b); and (3) the defendant’s supplemental motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine juror misconduct and new trial is denied.) 02/22/2006 - Niver v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (action for first-party bad faith for failure to pay workers compensation benefits; defendant’s second summary judgment motion: rejecting the defendant’s contention that Bellville v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 702 N.W.2d 468 (Iowa 2005), changed Iowa law for the “fairly debatable” element of a bad faith claim; granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability for bad faith, but leaving damages for trial) 02/06/2006 - Bunda v. Potter (Defendant employer, as the prevailing party in an employment discrimination lawsuit, requested $6,997.92 be taxed against the plaintiff employee for expenses associated with the litigation of this matter; Court held (1) process server fees are disallowed because service was not provided by the U.S. Marshals Service as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and therefore, constitute special process fees, which are not recoverable within the Eighth Circuit; (2) Fees of the court reporter for depositions necessarily obtained for use in the case are recoverable; however, defendant failed to meet its burden with respect to one deponent, therefore, all of the costs associated with this witness are disallowed, the remainder of the costs are taxable; (3) defendant is not entitled to recover full amount of costs incurred for obtaining copies of certain depositions transcripts as such fees were unreasonable; (4) defendant not allowed to recover costs incurred for postage or ASCII disks; (5) defendant could recover the entire amount of the expert witness fees it incurred with the exception of the costs associated with a nontestifying expert’s out-of-court-preparation fees; (6) defendant awarded costs incurred for reproducing trial exhibits and obtaining copies from county clerk’s office; (7) costs taxed against plaintiff in the amount of $2,800.17. ) 01/31/2006 - Pro Edge L.P., et al. v. Gue (Motion to modify preliminary injunction; motion sought to modify the preliminary injunction previously issued by this court on June 1, 2005 by fixing a specific date, prior to the anticipated trial date, on which the preliminary injunction would dissolve; defendant contended the expiration date should be set for one year from the date he quit his employment with the plaintiff; plaintiff contended the date should be set for one year from the date the defendant actually quit providing competing services; court held that (1) modification of the preliminary injunction was warranted in light of changed circumstances, and (2) equity demanded the injunction continue for one year after the date the defendant quit providing competing services with the plaintiff; the prelminary injunction modified to reflect an expiration date of May 18, 2006.) 01/31/2006 - Dible v. Steve Scholl & Gary Maynard (Suit by former prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two prison officials for monetary damages associated with alleged violations of the prisoner’s due process rights; motion to dismiss; motion to dismiss denied as former prisoner was unable to pursue habeas relief on mootness grounds leaving an action under § 1983 as the only available remedy to the plaintiff; in the absence of binding United States Supreme Court or Eighth Circuit precedent, plaintiff could proceed with § 1983 action without first satisfying Heck v. Humphrey’s favorable termination requirement.) 01/24/2006 - Maytag Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., d/b/a Frigidaire : (Patent infringement action by assignee of patents for plastic washing machine baskets and the process for making them; ruling after Markman hearing on patent claim construction) 01/19/2006 - Baxter v. Briar Cliff College Group Insurance Plan, et al. : (Suit by ERISA plan beneficiary against the plan, the plan administrator, and the plan insurer for judicial review of reduction of disability benefits; cross-motions for summary judgment; whether the insurer of the ERISA plan properly reduced the plaintiff’s disability benefits under the plan by the amount of estimated Social Security disability benefits to which the insurer contended that the plaintiff had a “right,” even though the plaintiff had not been awarded, or even applied for, such Social Security disability benefits; whether the plan administrator or insurer timely provided the plaintiff with copies of all plan documents upon her request as required by ERISA and pertinent regulations) 01/18/2006 - Cook v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Former employee’s FMLA retaliation claim; employer’s motion for summary judgment; plaintiff generated a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether she suffered from a serious medical condition; material fact question generated as to whether employer failed to follow through with the regulation that it was required to give employee fifteen days in which to submit the requested medical certification, and whether employers did not give employee notice of what it viewed as the deficiencies in the medical certification form submitted by employee; genuine issue of material fact generated on the question of whether employer gave employee an opportunity to cure any alleged deficiencies in the medical certification form; genuine issue of material fact generated as to whether the reasons articulated by employer for employee’s termination are pretextual; and, the court found that the temporal proximity of employee’s request for FMLA leave and the adverse employment action, in conjunction with the circumstances surrounding employer’s firing of employee, raised a genuine issue of material fact that employer’s action in firing employee was not taken in good faith.) 11/28/2005 - The Conveyor Company v. Sunsource Technology Services, Inc. (Suit by manufacturer of stinger stacker that collapsed against supplier of hydraulic lift package; defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment: distinctions between claim for breach of warranty of merchantability and claim of breach of warranty for a particular purpose, “economic loss rule” as bar to tort claims for strict liability and negligent misrepresentation, and nature of the duty required to support a claim for negligent misrepresentation) 11/02/2005 - Van Horn, et. al. v. Van Horn, et. al. (Dispute between father and two children as to ownership in holding company; action was stayed in this court pending arbitration of the parties’ dispute; following issuance of arbitral award and disposal of post-arbitration motions, defendant-children filed a motion to lift the stay and confirm arbitration award in this court; defendants further filed motions to dismiss their remaining counterclaims against the plaintiff and involuntary plaintiff; plaintiff-father resisted the defendants’ motion to confirm the arbitral award asserting the dispute should have never been submitted to arbitration or, in the alternative, that the award should be vacated on a number of grounds; finding the matter fully arbitrated and submitted to the court, the motion to lift the stay is granted; the court would not reconsider its prior ruling compelling arbitration of the parties’ dispute based on the employment of the law of the case doctrine; the plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence demonstrating any statutory or extra-statutory ground for vacation or denial of confirmation under § 10 of the FAA; motion to confirm arbitration award granted; motion to vacate arbitration award denied; motions to dismiss counterclaims against plaintiff and involuntary plaintiff granted; parties ordered to divide costs are evenly among the parties, with each party bearing the expense of their own witnesses.) 10/19/2005 - Gordon v. Gerard Treatment Programs, LLC (Former employee’s FMLA retaliation claim; employer’s motion for summary judgment: Although 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c) expressly authorizes an employer to terminate an employee who fails to provide a fitness-for-duty certification at the time that FMLA leave is concluded, the employee generated genuine issues of material fact that her termination pursuant to that regulation was nevertheless retaliatory) 10/03/2005 - Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, et al. (Challenge to city’s superseded amended zoning ordinances regulating the location of “adult entertainment businesses”; cross-motions for summary judgment: mootness and plaintiff’s standing to challenge superseded ordinances; unconstitutionality of superseded ordinances under the First Amendment, to the extent that they regulated “adult media”; fact questions on extent of adult entertainment business’s stock of “sex toys,” precluding determination of constitutional protection of sale of such items under “substantive due process” right to “privacy”) 09/28/2005 - Morris v. Conagra Food (Suit by former employee against former employer alleging racially hostile work environment under Title VII, pendent state law claim under Iowa Code Chapter 216, and state law claim of retaliatory discharge under Iowa Code Chapter 91A; motion for summary judgment; summary judgment granted as to racially hostile work environment claim under both federal and state law where plaintiff did not come forward with evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find he was subjected to a continuous pattern of harassment based on his race or that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive; summary judgment granted as to retaliation claim under Iowa Code Chapter 91A where at-will employee was not denied any wages, but was in fact, overpaid.) 09/28/2005 - Remmes v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., et al. (Diversity products liability action; motions to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity and for lack of personal jurisdiction; fraudulent concealment claim not plead with requisite particularity where; plaintiff granted leave to replead fraud based claims; finding that Iowa Supreme Court would recognize civil conspiracy as a basis to support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction under Iowa’s long-arm statute; that plaintiff successfully made out a prima facie case which would support application of the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction; court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over defendants) 09/16/2005 - Nock v. GKN Armstrong Wheels, Inc. (Disability discrimination claims under ADA and Iowa law; defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment; analysis of whether plaintiff had generated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he suffered from a qualifying disability within the meaning of the ADA and the ICRA; analysis of whether plaintiff had generated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a record of a qualifying disability; analysis of whether plaintiff had generated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff was regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. 09/09/2005 - White v. Kautzky, et al. (Prisoner’s § 1983 action for denial of access to the courts; review of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the merits: legal assistance system at the prison, which precluded all legal research on the inmate’s improper extradition claim, even where such legal research would have been reasonably necessary, in the exercise of a legal advisor’s reasonable professional judgment, to provide reasonably competent legal advice on the merits of the inmate’s claim, violated the inmate’s right of access to the courts, and the inmate suffered “actual injury,” because the legal assistance system itself so stymied his ability to obtain adequate legal advice that he could not file any claim based on improper extradition; appropriate remedy, where the statute of limitations on any claim had expired, was nominal damages and declaratory relief) 09/08/2005 - Pierce v. Fort Dodge Animal Health (disability discrimination in employment suit under Iowa and federal law; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: sufficiency of the plaintiff’s prima facie case) 08/17/2005 - Park v. Hill v: (diversity action by bank president against unsuccessful bidder in tender offer for bank alleging defamation under Iowa law; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: applicability of “protection of the publisher’s interest” and “common interest” qualified privileges, abuse of the privileges) 08/08/2005 - Pro Edge L.P. et al v. Charles S. Gue, III (Motion to amend and/or reconsider preliminary injunction order filed June 1, 2005; motion challenged holding that following corporate reorganizaiton, Pro Edge, L.P. properly held the employment agreement (“1996 Agreement”) containing the non-compete clause and could enforce it against defendant; on reconsideration court held that: (1) reasonable inference arose from exhibits admitted at preliminary injunction hearing that defendant executed the Stock Purchase Agreement; (2) termination provisions in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2(b) did not foreclose transfer or assignment of the 1996 Agreement to Pro Edge, L.P. prior to the closing date; (3) representative appointed by virtue of defendant’s execution of the Stock Purchase Agreement was vested with the authority to consent to assignment of the 1996 Agreement; and (4) reasonable inference drawn from evidence presented was that representative did consent to assignment and/or transfer of 1996 Agreement to Pro Edge, L.P.; motion to reconsider denied.) 07/05/2005 - Blakely v. Anesthetix of Iowa, P.C. (Discrimination, contract breach, wage and hour violation; defendant’s motion for summary judgment on count one race and national origin discrimination granted; defendant’s motion for summary judgment on count two breach of contract and integration clause granted and as to calculation of annual pay denied; defendant motion on count four wage hour violation denied; plaintiff generated genuine issue of material fact regarding count two breach of contract as to calculation of pay and count three) 06/23/2005 - Pro Edge, L.P., et al. v. Gue, et al. (Plaintiffs, shortly following removal from state court, filed motion to extend temporary restraining order issued by state court and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from engaging in competing activities in Belgrade, Montana area in violation of employment agreement, which contained a non-compete clause, signed by individual defendant while employed with plaintiffs; defendants resisted and filed a motion to dismiss; day long preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing held; court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant corporation, which was incorporated and had principal place of business in Montana, and had no contacts with Iowa; court had specific personal jurisdiction over individual defendant where that defendant executed the employment agreement in Iowa in 1996, remained in Iowa for a year and a half following execution of employment agreement, remained an employee of Iowa plaintiffs even after relocating to Montana, defendant’s direct supervisor was always in Iowa up until his separation with plaintiffs on April 8, 2005, defendant maintained contact with Iowa main office on weekly basis, defendant received paycheck from Iowa bank account, employment agreement contained an Iowa choice of law clause, and defendant maintained ownership stake, in the form of partnership units, in Pro Edge, L.P.; examining the case under Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 187(2)(b), court found that § 188 factors amounted to a “tie” and deferred to the parties expression of Iowa choice of law in the employment agreement; non-compete clause of employment agreement reasonable and enforceable under Iowa law; as corporation is entitled to use fictitious name in making contracts, fact that plaintiff’s predecessor used fictitious name in signing employment contract with individual defendant did not make contract unenforceable; after examining corporate reorganization of plaintiffs, court held that Pro Edge, L.P. properly held the employment agreement and could enforce it against individual defendant; on balancing of the Dataphase factors, the court found the factors weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction; preliminary injunction would issue following plaintiffs posting of a bond in the amount of $30,000.00; venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a); court would not dismiss for forum non conveniens; defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part; plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction granted.) 06/01/2005 - McMannes v. United Rentals, Inc. (Plaintiff brought action based on alleged unlawful termination her employment with defendant because of her age under ADEA and ICRA; motion for summary judgment; plaintiff relied only on circumstantial evidence of age discrimination, thus making the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis appropriate; defendant conceded that plaintiff had established her prima facie case; defendant proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination: taking of merchandise, specifically two Mylar balloons, without paying for them in violation of company policy; court found genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether McMannes’s direct supervisor was involved in the decision making process and the proffered reason was pretext for age discrimination; viewed in light most favorable to the plaintiff: (1)plaintiff had the authority to write off inventory, and exercised that authority in setting the Mylar balloons aside during a reduction of inventory; (2) direct supervisor knew plaintiff had set aside Mylar balloons before distributing a new policy regarding junked inventory requiring employees pay for any written off merchandise; (3) plaintiff believed that balloons were not covered under new policy as they had been written off prior to the policy being in effect; (4) plaintiff had never been disciplined for her handling of merchandise prior to taking the balloons hom; (5) plaintiff’s direct supervisor asked he if she was “on track to retire” contemporaneously with terminating her; and (6) there was evidence that plaintiff’s younger replacement had violated company rules regarding telephone use, but no investigation was ever conducted, nor was replacement punished; summary judgment denied.) 05/20/2005 - Lang v. Ault (Petition for habeas corpus relief from Iowa state court conviction under § 2254; respondent filed motion for partial summary judgment claiming that all but two of petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted because petitioner failed to exhaust those claims; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge recommended granting respondent’s motion because it was unresisted; petitioner filed pro se objections to report and recommendation; the court concluded that magistrate judge correctly determined that only two issues that petitioner raised on direct appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals could be considered in this federal habeas proceeding because petitioner failed to properly exhaust any of his other issues in the Iowa courts; the court concluded that the court could not reach the merits of petitioner’s procedurally defaulted claims because he cannot show cause for his default and prejudice or actual innocence. Respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted.) 05/17/2005 - Buenting v. Riley, et al. (Civil Rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; plaintiff’s claims that his constitutional rights were violated by continued harassing conduct by a police officer and the failure of the chief of police to curtail the alleged harassing conduct; the court concludes that defendant police officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he stopped plaintiff on one occasion; the court also concludes that plaintiff was not seized by defendant police officer when police officer pulled up in front of plaintiff’s father’s house and warned plaintiff that the tint on the windshield of plaintiff’s vehicle was too dark; the court finds there has been a showing that defendant police officer violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by pulling plaintiff over without reasonable suspicion; the court also concludes that defendant police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiff’s claim; the court further concludes that defendant police officer’s conduct does not sufficiently shock the conscience so as to violate substantive due process; the court also concludes that plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant police chief was deliberately indifferent to the rights of citizens who came into contact with defendant police officer or tacitly authorized the offending acts; finally, the court concludes because the record is sufficient to establish a § 1983 claim against defendant police officer, the defendant city is not entitled to summary judgment. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.) 05/13/2005 - Griffiths v. Winnebago, Industries, Inc. (Claim for unequal pay based on sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that other male employees having same job title did not perform substantially equal work and were not appropriate male comparators to support plaintiff’s prima facie case, and alternatively that it could establish the affirmative defenses of a seniority system and unequal pay based on a factor other than sex; plaintiff had established genuine issue of material fact as to her prima facie case as she identified several males with her position, Production Supervisor II, that obtained higher wages than she did at the time of her retirement and the record raised fact questions as to whether male comparators did substantially equal work to plaintiff; fact that some male Production Supervisor IIs made less did not prevent plaintiff from establishing prima facie case for purposes of summary judgment; defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that a seniority system justified differences in pay rates; defendant also failed to establish as a matter of law that differences were due to factors other than sex, especially in light of fact that some male comparators with less supervisory experience were given higher wages than plaintiff at the time of her retirement; motion for summary judgment as to EPA claim denied; plaintiff withdrew claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, so motion for summary judgment denied as moot as to that claim.) 05/05/2005 - Bunda v. Potter, et al. (Female postal service employee asserts claims of hostile environment sexual harassment by a temporary supervisor and retaliation by the supervisor and other managers in violation of Title VII: defendants’ motion for summary judgment: The only proper defendant for the action is the Postmaster General and punitive damages are not available, but the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to proceed to trial on her hostile environment and retaliation claims) 05/02/2005 - Steck v. (Female police officer’s claims of hostile environment sexual harassment by police chief and retaliation by police department in violation of Title VII and state law: defendants’ motion for summary judgment: considering the relevance of the status of the harasser as a supervisor or co-worker to the “objective” and “subjective” severity of a hostile environment and postulating a “sliding scale” test on the premise that, as the harasser moves higher in the heirarchy of the employer, incidents of harassment become proportionally more severe; rejecting several incidents of alleged retaliation on the grounds that they did not constitute “adverse employment action” or that the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants’ legitimate, non-retaliatory explanations) 04/21/2005 - Mallett v. NephCare, Inc. & Nurse "Terry" 04/19/2005 - Sioux Biochemical, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. (Action arising from a dispute over the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s allegedly secret process for manufacturing chondroitin sulfate; defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, correction of patent inventorship, conversion of intellectual property, and common-law misappropriation, or, in the alternative, to strike the common-law misappropriation claim as redundant of a similar statutory claim) 04/11/2005 - Halverson-Collins v. Community & Family Resources (Plaintiff claimed retaliation in violation of Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) for termination following return from FMLA qualified leave; defendant filed motion for summary judgment conceding plaintiff had established her prima facie case of retaliation, but asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination, and arguing that a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext could not be generated from the record; in light of recent Eighth Circuit opinions on the issue, court found McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis was appropriate framework to apply to plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation claim; defendant explanation that plaintiff was terminated as part of a financial downturn as well as the final stage of consolidation of financial department following recent merger was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; temporal proximity of FMLA leave and adverse employment action, unexplained knowledge of plaintiff’s supervisor as to her need for past need for leave due to medical condition, as well as defendant’s job announcement posted days after plaintiffs termination for a position the plaintiff was objectively qualified for generated a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext; summary judgment denied.) 04/06/2005 - Laffey v. Ault (Petitioner convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, sentenced to two consecutive 25-year terms; petitioner appealed on four grounds one of which was that consecutive sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment; Iowa Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and discussed the Eighth Amendment claim, but vacated the sentence on ground that court abused its discretion in considering an improper sentencing factor; at resentencing petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive 25-year terms; petitioner appealed new sentences, but did not again raise the Eighth Amendment claim; Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed his new sentences; petitioner later filed petition for habeas corpus under § 2254; respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s habeas petition on grounds that it was “mixed”—specifically claiming Eighth Amendment claim was unexhausted as it was not raised on direct review following resentencing; Report and Recommendation recommended denying the motion to dismiss; on de novo review the court rejected respondent’s argument that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEPDA”) exterminated futility as a basis for excusing exhaustion of state court remedies, and noted that post-AEDPA Eighth Circuit case law recognized the continued viability of the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement; court further held futility doctrine applied in this instance where Iowa Supreme Court had adversely ruled on the petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim as to his original sentences and where the new sentences were based on an identical factual predicate as the original sentences; objections overruled; Report and Recommendation adopted; motion to dismiss denied.) 04/04/2005 - McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corporation & Qwest Communications Corporation (Litigation between telecommunications companies over payment dispute; plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction: application of Dataphase factors, including explanation of “likelihood of success on the merits” factor, extension of term for temporary restraining order for “good cause,” and waiver of bond requirement) 03/23/2005 - Toledo v. North American Kiln (Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on count one breach of contract denied; defendant generated genuine issue of material fact) 03/18/2005 - Matlock v. Vilsack, et al. (Plaintiff filed § 1983 claims against Governor of the State of Iowa, Black Hawk County and John Does based on fact that plaintiff’s civil commitment under Iowa Code Chapter 229A was later found unconstitutional by Iowa Court of Appeals; both named defendants moved to dismiss; magistrate judge’s report and recommendation recommended granting motions to dismiss; no abuse of process claim could be sustained as there were no facts alleged that any defendant had used Chapter 229A against the defendant for an improper purpose or with an impermissible motive; further, no § 1983 action could be maintained as both County and Governor, in his official capacity, were immune from such suit; report and recommendation accepted; motions to dismiss granted.) 03/10/2005 - O'Brecht v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy—namely, retaliation for filing worker’s compensation claims; motion to dismiss filed by defendant; defendant claimed language in settlement agreement reached by the parties as to plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim allowed for plaintiff’s termination at defendant’s discretion; plaintiff argues provision in settlement agreement was against Iowa’s strong public policy against retaliation for filing worker’s compensation claims and is therefore void; any interpretation of settlement agreement language that would expressly allow defendant to terminate plaintiff for filing worker’s compensation claim would be void as against public policy; defendant can rely on interpretation of settlement agreement language to allow for plaintiff’s termination for non-retaliatory reasons to rebut motive requirement of plaintiff’s claim; motion to dismiss denied.) 03/09/2005 - General Casualty Insurance Co. v. Penn-Co Construction Company (Defendant Penn-Co was general contractor on UNI-Dome roof-replacement project; General Casualty was insurer of one of Penn-Co’s subcontractor; General Casualty brought declaratory judgment suit contending it was not required to provide a defense or indemnify Penn-Co in underlying action in which UNI sued Penn-Co for damage due to leaks in the UNI-Dome roof; cross-motions for summary judgment; applying Iowa law contract construction and interpretation principles the court found that Penn-Co was an insured under the 1999-2000 Contractor’s Policy and 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 Umbrella Policies, but not an insured under 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 Contractor’s Policies or the Commercial General Liability Policies; genuine issue of material fact prevented summary judgment as to whether Penn-Co had primary insurance under its policies with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul)—which also provided Penn-Co a defense, and funds with which to settle, the underlying action—thereby negating coverage under the General Casualty policies; Penn-Co was not judicially estopped from arguing that General Casualty was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether there had “property damage” resulting from an “occurrence” as defined by the policies, as Penn-Co had not taken an inconsistent position in the underlying action; General Casualty was collaterally estopped from arguing that “property damage” resulting from an “occurrence” did not happen; Penn-Co was in a different position than its subcontractor in terms of compliance with notice requirements of the policies, therefore General Casualty was not collaterally estopped from arguing that Penn-Co had not substantially complied with the notice requirements to the prejudice of General Casualty; Minnesota law governed Miller-Schugart stipulated settlement entered into between Penn-Co and subcontractor; genuine issues of material fact existed as to reasonableness/prudence of stipulated settlement and as to whether stipulated settlement was the results of fraud and/or collusion—therefore requiring partial denial of Penn-Co’s motion for summary judgment seeking to bind General Casualty to the terms of the stipulated settlement; cross-motions) 03/02/2005 - Williams, et al. v. Security National Bank : (Remainder beneficiaries’ suit against trustee for mismanagement of trust; parties’ motions in limine: trustee’s motions to exclude evidence of insurance, settlement negotiations, “expert” opinions of consultant, revision of internal policies, amendment of petition in probate action, a beneficiary’s supposed right to growth of the trust, certain familial and corporate relationships, stock indices, and testimony of certain experts; beneficiaries’ motions to exclude evidence of purported offsets against damages for trustee fees and the life beneficiary’s right to principal of the trust) 02/25/2005 - Van Horn v. Van Horn, et al. (Dispute between father and two children as to ownership in holding company; defendant-children filed motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19, or alternatively to stay litigation and compel arbitration pursuant to letter executed by all memorializing telephone conference with federal and state banking authorities; as alleged ownership of the holding company was between the plaintiff, the two defendants, and a third child of the plaintiff, and as defendants asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against their sibling, third child of plaintiff joined as involuntary plaintiff under Rule 19(a) and diversity jurisdiction remained intact; holding company itself was not an indispensable party to ownership dispute where current parties comprised a discrete group of the only possible owners of the shares of the holding company; motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties denied; letter memorializing teleconference, which was signed and notarized by all parties, did touch upon commerce and thereby did fall under the Federal Arbitration Act; letter was a valid contract to arbitrate specific dispute at issue in the litigation; defendants’ motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration granted; litigation stayed, and parties ordered to submit ownership dispute issues to arbitration consistent with the terms of the letter.) 02/04/2005 - Cook v. Electrolux (Prior court order confirmed arbitration award awarding grievant (here plaintiff) reinstatement and backpay in dispute between defendant and representative union; plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the FMLA and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (“IWPCL”); defendant filed motion for summary judgment contending prior court order precluded the plaintiff’s claims on res judicata grounds; plaintiff filed cross-motion for summary judgment contending arbitration decision collaterally estopped defendant from asserting that it had not violated the FMLA in terminating her employment; defendant filed second motion for partial summary judgment on IWPCL claim; court held prior court order confirming arbitration award was not accorded a claim or issue preclusive effect under Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S. Ct. 1011, 39 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1974), and its progeny, and therefore denied the cross-motions for summary judgment as to the FMLA claim; defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment as to IWPCL claim granted as a backpay award was not “wages” as defined by the IWPCL.) 01/26/2005 - Karen M.Schmidt and Daniel J. Schmidt v. Fortis Insurance Company (Defendant rescinded plaintiffs’ insurance policy on basis of fraudulent misrepresentations on enrollment form; plaintiff sued seeking declaratory judgment that rescission was unlawful and also asserted a breach of contract claim based on the wrongful rescission; defendant then claimed a right to declaratory judgment that responses on application were false and rescission was lawful; cross-motions for summary judgment; court found that individual assisting the plaintiffs to procure replacement health insurance was an ‘agent’ under Iowa law—and therefore, his knowledge of plaintiff’s health history was imputable to defendant, though a genuine issue of material fact as to what agent actually knew was generated by the record; the record did not support defendant’s allegation that plaintiffs and agent colluded to perpetrate a fraud upon defendant, and therefore as to this point of contention the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied in part and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part; application question regarding whether any proposed insured had been “treated for . . . cancer” in the previous ten years was ambiguous and question of whether plaintiff’s prescription drug (tamoxifen) use constituted “treatment” could be resolved only via resort to extrinsic evidence—thereby generating a genuine issue of material fact which precluded summary judgment for either party; application question regarding whether any proposed insured had “consulted with a physician concerning . . . cancer” in the past ten years was also ambiguous and question of whether plaintiff’s doctor visits in the previous ten years fell within the ambit of this phrase could not be resolved without turning to extrinsic evidence—therefore, summary judgment for either party was not appropriate as a genuine issue of material fact had been generated; genuine issue of material fact also existed as to whether plaintiffs’ “no” response to application question inquiring into whether they had ever previously been declined medical insurance; plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment granted in part as related to the defendant’s fraud upon the principal claim, but denied in all other respects; defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied in its entirety.) 01/03/2005 - Knudsen v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (Social Security Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) fee calculation): objections by the commissioner as to method used by plaintiff to calculate attorney’s hourly rate; court provides computation method of hourly rate; rates are to be adjusted according to the year the service was performed; court requires itemization of hours and block billing does not conform to the local rules to provide a description of services provided; prejudgment interest is precluded; attorney must provide documentation to support an award of an hourly rate greater than that established by statute; court finds the appropriate CPI to use is the CPI tied to the area where the service was performed and the court will use the Midwest Urban CPI available through www.bls.gov website) 12/23/2004 - Tinius v. St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc., et al. (Claims arising from an incident at St. Anthony Regional Hospital in Carroll, Iowa, during which plaintiff contends that he was unlawfully confined against his will and was catheterized without his consent. Plaintiff asserts claims of false imprisonment, medical battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence.) 12/22/2004 - Tinius v. Carroll County (Civil rights; motion to dismiss; where as a result of the court’s prior rulings all of plaintiff’s claims which would confer original jurisdiction on the court have been dismissed, defendants request that the court decline to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against them; assessment of whether that the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity require the court to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.) 12/20/2004 - Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad v. Pay Load, Inc., et al. (Diversity tort action; motion for partial summary judgment; analysis of appropriateness of recover by leasee of locomotive for liquidate loss value set in locomotive lease as compensatory damage where locomotive is damaged in collision with semi-truck; review of damages permitted under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 928 versus Restatement (Second) of Torts § 927; analysis of whether plaintiff could meet its burden of proof as to claim for punitive damages under Iowa Code § 668A.1(1)(a) as to either the truck driver or his employer.) 12/15/2004 - Lorenzen v. GKN Armstrong, Inc. (Employment discrimination and wrongful discharge; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: plaintiff’s burdens to prove sex discrimination in pay under the Equal Pay Act; “actual disability” and “perceived disability” under the ADA; constructive discharge in violation of public policy for filing a workers’ compensation claim) 11/22/2004 - Oldcastle Materials, Inc. v. Rohlin, et al. (Contract dispute involving allegations of conflicting agreements for sale and purchase of majority shareholders’ shares in closely-held corporation; cross-motions for specific performance by third-party buyers and assignee of minority shareholders: determination of whether a letter from the third-party buyers constituted an offer, whether the majority shareholders accepted that offer, whether the minority shareholders properly exercised a right of first refusal to buy the shares on the same terms as the third-party buyers, and whether the assignee of the minority shareholders was entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell the shares; court’s sua sponte determination to certify entry of judgment on some but not all of the claims in the action pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 11/18/2004 - Electrolux Home Products, Inc. v. The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implemetn Workers of America, et al. (Labor Law; judicial review of arbitration award regarding termination of union member; cross-motions for summary judgment; analysis of whether arbitrator’s decision draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; review of whether arbitrator engaged in manifest disregard for the law; assessment of whether attorneys’ fees for the costs of defending arbitration decision was warranted.) 11/17/2004 - North Central Construction v. Siouxland Energy and Livestock Cooperative (Following arbitration award plaintiff moved to (1) vacate, modify or correct award with respect to arbitration panel’s denial of its claim for attorneys’ fees, (2) for selective confirmation of the award except for the denial of attorneys’ fees, (3) for this court to award plaintiff attorneys’ fees; plaintiff challenges award on ground that attorneys’ fees was not submitted for arbitration and the arbitration panel acted outside its authority in ruling on the issue and that it reserved the issue of attorneys’ for determinate by this court in its pre-hearing brief submitted to the arbitration panel; motion to vacate, modify or correct award denied where plaintiff had moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ contract, where contract provided for arbitration of all unresolved disputes arising from the contract, and where plaintiff had claimed attorneys’ fees as portion of relief in documents filed with arbitration panel; motion for selective confirmation denied where no grounds existed to vacate, modify or correct the arbitration award; motion for attorneys’ fees to the extent it requested fees incurred by plaintiff prior to arbitration award denied as moot; motion for attorneys’ fees to the extent it requested post-arbitration attorneys’ fees denied.) 10/28/2004 - O'Connor v. Barnhart 09/28/2004 - Edwards v. Ault (Petition for habeas corpus relief from Iowa state court conviction under § 2254; respondent filed motion to dismiss claiming petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge; petitioner’s objection to recommended dismissal of the fourth claim in his petition (ground D) was overruled as claim had not been properly raised before any Iowa Court and could not be raised as limitations period had passed; three remaining claims exhausted, therefore motion to dismiss mixed petition denied; three remaining claims involved ineffective assistance of counsel revolving around trial counsel’s counseling defense DNA expert to use the term “exclusion” in his testimony in front of and FBI agent; as petitioner failed to show an actual conflict of interest, prejudice was not presumed under Cuyler; petitioner could not show Strickland prejudice as a result of trial counsel’s mistake, therefore ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim failed; as trial counsel was not ineffective, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness on appeal; report and recommendation accepted; motion to dismiss denied; ground four (D) dismissed as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted; writ of habeas corpus denied on the merits; certificate of appealability would not issue.) 09/27/2004 - Catholic Order of Foresters, et. al. v. U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., et al (Securities fraud and related claims; defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for improper venue: venue pursuant to the “special” venue provision for federal securities fraud claims, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; one defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: circumstances under which a non-debtor falls within the scope of the automatic stay in bankruptcy, whether plaintiffs seek property of the bankruptcy estate) 09/27/2004 - McInnis v. Barnhart (Social Security; overpayment of benefits, Commissioner’s objection to report and recommendation recommending judgment finding claimant was “without fault” in receiving overpayment of benefits: the ALJ did not err in finding the claimant was “not without fault” in receiving overpayment of benefits when claimant testified that he had met with SSA representative, knew there was a monthly earning limitation, knew he was going over the monthly earning limitation, and knew that his benefits were at jeopardy because he was earning over the monthly limitation, yet continued to receive benefits; claimant received notice by mail and through discussion with SSA representative that he was required to report earnings that might impact his benefits; ALJ properly evaluated the record and concluded that the claimant should have known or understood that he was required to report earnings that might affect his benefits; claimant accepted payment of benefits that he knew or could have been expected to know was incorrect; report and recommendation rejected.) 09/27/2004 - Wells' Dairy, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, et al. (Commercial litigation; diversity action; motion to modify prior orders regarding insurer’s duty to defend insured; review of standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); review of standards for permitting insured to terminate its duty to defend; analysis of when dismissed claims become final so as to permit an insurer to withdraw its defense) 09/23/2004 - Edward Branstad & Monroe Branstad v. Veneman ((Action for judicial review of USDA action under the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3821-24; renewed motion for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, after favorable result on remand to agency: plaintiff’s “prevailing party” status, “substantial justification” for the USDA’s position or lack thereof, presence or absence of “special circumstances” warranting denial of fees, and appropriateness of amount of fees based on enhanced hourly rate) 09/21/2004 - Edward Branstad & Monroe Branstad v. Veneman (Action for judicial review of USDA action under the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3821-24; renewed motion for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, after favorable result on remand to agency: plaintiff’s “prevailing party” status, “substantial justification” for the USDA’s position or lack thereof, presence or absence of “special circumstances” warranting denial of fees, and appropriateness of amount of fees based on enhanced hourly rate) 09/21/2004 - Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co. Inc. ((Patent infringement action based on patent for air filter restriction indicator; ruling on defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment: double recovery and improper enhancement; plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and expert witness fees pursuant to the court’s inherent power: “willfulness” of infringement as basis for finding an “exceptional case,” appropriateness of awarding fees, reasonableness of hours and application of Minneapolis-St. Paul rates instead of local rates, and standards for awarding expert witness fees as a sanction) 09/21/2004 - Marvin v. North Central Iowa Mental Health Center, Inc. (Civil rights; motion for summary judgment; assessment of whether defendant community mental health center was a state actor; determination of of whether there was pervasive entwinement of public officials and actions of defendant.) 09/17/2004 - Nelson v. Long Lines, et al. (Employment discrimination-age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and claims for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; motion for summary judgment; analysis of whether plaintiff generated a genuine issue of material fact that defendants acted on the basis of a discriminatory motive; examination of whether defendant employer was covered by the overtime requirements of the FSLA; analysis of whether Iowa has recognized the claim of breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment context; analysis of plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim and determination as to whether statement rose to the level of a clear and definite promise; consideration of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim and determination of whether plaintiff performed services for defendants which were known and accepted by defendants when he used his own tools and equipment to accomplish tasks during his employment.) 09/15/2004 - Jasa v. Mathes (Motion to dismiss habeas corpus petition on grounds of procedural default; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge; petitioner does not object to recommendation that motion to dismiss be granted as to jury misconduct claim; no plain error in magistrate’s analysis of petitioner’s jury misconduct claim, therefore recommendation that claim is accepted; petitioner asserted that his mental illnesses prevented him from appealing from denial of his postconvicion relief application which asserted ineffective assistance of counsel; petitioner failed to show that his mental disorders made him unable to comprehend his legal rights and responsibilities at the time during which he should have pursued postconviction relief; procedural default not excused; report and recommendation accepted; motion to dismiss granted.) 09/13/2004 - Engling v. Barnhart (Social Security; Commissioner’s objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of claimant: the ALJ erred in not giving more weight to counselor’s opinion when counselor treated claimant over period of time and was consistent with the record, versus the opinion of one time consultative examining psychologist; ALJ’s credibility analysis was in error because evidence did not supported a finding that claimant was not credible; evidence supported a finding that claimant suffered from a mental impairment and would be unable to sustain gainful employment) 09/08/2004 - Storm, et al. v. Van Beek, et al. (Diversity action for breach of contract, fraud, and other business torts; defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to name indispensable party and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, both premised on failure to name a defunct partnership as a party before suing the partners who continued the business of the partnership) 09/02/2004 - Jacobsen v.Department of Transportation, et al. (Civil rights; motion for summary judgment; assessment of whether plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) failed as a matter of law because of a lack of evidence that the alleged conspiracy was motivated by an invidious, class-based animus against plaintiff; consideration of the defendants’ arguments that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants in their official capacities; analysis of whether plaintiff had generated a genuine issue of material fact that governor took a prohibited action himself or failed to take any required action that caused plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivation; assessment of whether plaintiff could generate a genuine issue of material fact that assistant attorney general took an action which deprived plaintiff of a protected right; analysis of whether certain defendants’ actions in moving plaintiff’s news racks were reasonable in light of the department of transportation’s ability to regulate such conduct in a non-public fora. ) 08/26/2004 - B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman (Judicial review of administrative action by the USDA finding a wetland “conversion” in violation of the “Swampbuster” Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24: reviewability by the USDA of prior certified wetland determination, as to which the producer withdrew its administrative appeal, in the course of administrative proceedings challenging agency finding of “conversion” of the same wetland) 08/18/2004 - Riker-Vanholand v. Transouth Financial Corporation, et al. (Motion to dismiss; pro se complainant; plaintiff alleges harassment by defendants over loan that was not her responsibility; defendants moved to dismiss amended complaint; civil RICO claim asserted in amended complaint was previously dismissed by this court by order dated May 7, 2004, therefore defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; plaintiff failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and, as no actual damages were asserted in any pleading, even the most liberal reading of the complaint could establish reliance; motion to dismiss fraud claim granted; remaining IDCPA claim dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as maximum damages recoverable, in light of fact that no actual damages were alleged, was $1000.00 and only basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity. 08/16/2004 - Engineered Products, Inc. v. Donaldson, Co. (Patent infringement action based on patent for air filter restriction indicator; ruling on equitable defenses tried to court and post-trial motions following jury verdict for plaintiff: (1) defense of obviousness-type double patenting; (2) defenses of laches and estoppel; (3) post-trial motions: (a) erroneous claim construction; (b) infringement; (c) “lost profits” damages; (d) “willfulness” of infringement; (e) errors in instructions and verdict form; (f) juror confusion over ability to find both “literal” infringement and “doctrine of equivalents” infringement; (g) court’s comments to defendant’s damages expert; (h) use during jury selection of a videotape providing an introduction to patent law; (i) enhanced damages; and (j) pre- and post-judgment interest) 08/12/2004 - Berg v. Barnhart, Comm. of Social Security (Commissioner’s objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of claimant: the ALJ did not err in discounting claimant’s allegations as to the level and severity claimed regarding his asthma and allergies, as his description of his daily activities, lack of documented attacks requiring medical or emergency intervention and medical regime were inconsistent with the allegations; ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence in the case; hypothetical question posted to the vocational expert included limitations the ALJ found credible; and medical record was sufficient for ALJ to make a determination.) 08/02/2004 - Stewart v. Barnhart, Comm. of Social Security (Social Security; Claimant’s objections to report and recommendation recommending a remand for further development of the record: ALJ failed to conduct a proper credibility analysis, failed to follow the recommendations of disability service examiners to obtain additional tests, failed to obtain treating physician’s opinion, and failed to pose a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that accurately included all of claimant’s limitations; discussion of other work, past relevant work and unsuccessful work attempt; case remanded for further development of the record and with direction to reconsider the evidence and make a proper evaluation of claimant’s limitations in accordance with the regulations). 08/02/2004 - Atwood v. Mapes (Petition for habeas corpus relief from Iowa state court conviction under § 2254;petitioner convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide and sentenced to two indeterminate terms not to exceed ten years; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge; petitioner contends his right to an impartial verdict was violated when trial judge, outside the presence of petitioner and his trial counsel, informed the jury of an anonymous telephone threat received prior to closing arguments; Remmer presumption is not clearly established federal law and therefore failure to apply the presumption does not amount to a constitutional violation; additional questions surround application of Remmer as communication was not related to the defendant or facts bearing on the indictment; burden of demonstrating prejudice lies with petitioner; petitioner failed to provide any evidence of prejudice or partiality, therefore objection was overruled; petitioner did not request to be present when trial judge informed jury of the threat, and therefore his right to be presence was waived; alternatively, any violation of petitioner’s right to be present was harmless error; ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed as petitioner could not establish Strickland prejudice arising from his trial counsels’ failure to request presence at the meeting or request to voir dire the jurors to ascertain if they were prejudiced; report and recommendation accepted; writ of habeas corpus denied; certificate of appealability would issue.) 07/19/2004 - "PSA Cases" (Kinkaid v. John Morrell & Co.; Hoefling v. John Morrell & Co.; Sokolowski v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.) (Separate actions by hog producers against packing companies pursuant to the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 181-231, alleging unfair and deceptive practices in relation to "transfer of risk" provisions of their contracts that were not licensed insurance; packing companies' motions to dismiss: meaning of "insurance" under Iowa law, determination of whether the producers alleged "insurance" or merely provisions for the "transfer of risk" of loss of hogs during shipment, determination of whether the producers have a cognizable PSA claim if the contracts are or are not "insurance") 06/18/2004 - Tiniuis v. Carroll County Sheriff Department, et al. (Civil rights; motion for summary judgment; assessment of whether plaintiff’s allegations of unlawful detention can support a substantive due process claim or must be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s reasonableness standard governing searches and seizures; analysis of law enforcement officer defendants’ claim of that they were justified in detaining plaintiff under the officers’ “community caretaking” function, in order to investigate plaintiff’s physical and mental condition; consideration of the defendants’ arguments that they are shielded from liability because they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions; analysis of whether the defendant officers were properly performing their "community caretaking" function when they detained plaintiff and later restrained him during catheterization procedure such that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery; examination of whether plaintiff can establish that the defendants' conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; analysis of whether as a matter of law the defendants’ actions constituted an intrusion which would establish an invasion of privacy tort; assessment of whether plaintiff could establish that the law enforcement officers breached a duty of care owed to him such as would support plaintiff’s claim of negligence; with respect to claims against medical personnel, analysis of whether plaintiff’s claim of lack of consent is controlled by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or by Iowa state law.) 06/14/2004 - Saenz v. Barnhart (Social Security; adoption of report and recommendation finding ALJ failed to properly conduct Polaski analysis; discussion of “acceptable medical source” opinion, “other medical source” opinion and “treating source” opinion; finding ALJ failed to properly consider “other medical source” opinion and requiring on remand consideration of the factors enumerated and defined by the regulations) 06/02/2004 - Kaydon Acquisition Corp. v. Custum Manufacturing, Inc., et al. : (Action for indemnity following settlement of a third party’s claims in litigation in California; motion to “clarify” ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment as to indemnity for attorneys fees and costs: authority to “clarify” or “reconsider” prior summary judgment ruling, “clarification” of what the prior ruling meant, and “reconsideration” of the prior ruling regarding proof required of a settling indemnitee to recover indemnification, based on contractual exception rather than general rule; motion for summary judgment on counterclaim for failure to pay sales commissions) 05/12/2004 - Riker-Vanholland v. Transouth Financial Corporation & Robert Hunter (Motion to dismiss; pro se complainant; plaintiff alleges harassment by defendants over loan that was not her responsibility; claim for violation of constitutional rights dismissed as no facts plead to support requirement that defendants were state actors or acted under color of law; civil RICO claim dismissed as pleadings did not evidence more than two predicate acts within the last ten years; two-year statute of limitations applied to plaintiff’s state law personal injury claims—state tort claims dismissed as action was filed more than three years after alleged injury; state law fraud claim subject to five-year statute of limitations; plaintiff’s state law fraud claim survives statute of limitations challenge and hence also survive motion to dismiss; pleadings place defendants on notice of possible claim under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.—though such a claim cannot be maintained as case was filed outside the two-year limitations period; pleadings also place defendant on notice of possible claim under the “Iowa Debt Collections Practices Act,” Iowa Code § 537.7101, et seq. (“IDCPA”) which is subject to a five-year statute of limitations; plaintiff’s state law fraud claim and “IDCPA” claims survive motion to dismiss; plaintiff given additional time to file amended complaint which: (1) pleads fraud with particularity; (2) specifically pleads a claim under the IDCPA; and (3) adequately avers that the amount in controversy is sufficient for the court to maintain diversity jurisdiction.) 05/07/2004 - Soto v. John Morrell & Company (Renewed motion for summary judgment; change in controlling law potentially impacted classification of alleged harasser as a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of sexually hostile work environment claim; recent Eighth Circuit decisions of Weyers v. Lear Operations Corporation, 359 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2004) and Joens v. John Morrell & Co., 354 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2004) adopted a ‘narrow’ definition of who is considered a supervisor; definition required individual to have the power to take tangible employment actions such as the authority to hire, fire, promote or reassign to significantly different duties; even under this ‘narrow’ definition the record still generated genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged harasser was a ‘supervisor’; in light most favorable to the plaintiff, the record showed that alleged harasser exercised apparent authority to fire and permanently reassign plaintiff as well as the actual authority to both control the frequency and duration of the plaintiff’s bathroom breaks, and to control her pay to some extent by assigning her to different positions on the kill floor; renewed motion for summary judgment denied.) 05/03/2004 - Williams, et al. v. Security National Bank : (Remainder beneficiaries’ suit against trustee for mismanagement of trust; trustee’s motion to stay proceedings in favor of action in Iowa probate court: applicability of the “first-filed rule” and the “Colorado River abstention doctrine” to concurrent actions in state and federal courts; determination of whether the concurrent actions are “parallel”; and consideration of other applicable factors) 04/26/2004 - Wallace v. Comm. of Social Security (Social Security; plaintiff’s attorney’s request for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b): lodestar methodology is no longer used to calculate fees requested pursuant to contingency fee agreement; continency fee agreement is starting point for court’s determination of reasonable fees; court can only award fees for time before the court; the court will not award twenty-five percent of past due benefits, even with contingency fee agreement, if such an award is unreasonable). 04/22/2004 - Sherman, et al. v. Kasotakis d/b/a The Horizsons Family Restaurant (Race discrimination in a public accommodation case under § 1981, § 2000a, and Iowa Code § 217.6; jury verdict for each of the four individual plaintiffs in the amount of $1.00 in nominal damages and $12,500.00 in punitive damages; defendant’s motion for partial judgment as a matter of law, partial new trial or remittitur as to punitive damages award; plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to include injunctive relief and application for attorney’s fees; failure to renew motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence or object in any way to jury instructions constituted waiver; under plain error analysis evidence supported holding employer liable for offending actions of employee where offending employee’s actions were ratified or approved of by supervising night manager; under plain error analysis jury instructions on punitive damages conformed to the law and adequately conveyed the rights and burdens of the respective parties; partial motion for judgment as a matter of law denied; partial motion for new trial on the issue of the constitutionality of the punitive damages award; application of the factors enumerated in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1996) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585 (2003); conduct in the upper echelon of reprehensibility; ratio not as important in civil rights cases where only nominal and punitive damages are awarded—reducing ratio to single digit multiplier in this instance would eviscerate the intent behind punitive damages; predictably, no similar civil penalties—which is precisely the reason for the creation of federal civil rights law; punitive damages award under the particular facts and circumstances was reasonable; motion for partial new trial denied; remittitur not warranted as the differential between nominal and punitive damages was neither monstrous nor shocking to the conscience; plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment granted; equitable relief ordered included two-year injunction, posting of notice, dissemination of anti-discrimination in a public accommodation policy, and maintenance of records; application for attorney’s fees granted with some modification to the claimed rates and reasonable hours; attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $19,692.46. 04/19/2004 - Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc. (Patent infringement action based on patent for air filter restriction indicator; pre-trial motions in the following categories: (1) motions relating to EPC’s case-in-chief (infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, willful infringement); (2) motions relating to Donaldson’s defenses (obviousness-type double patenting, patent misuse, separate patentability); (3) motions relating to experts (qualification, reliability, untimely disclosure); (4) waiver of privilege as to communications to or from EPC’s prior patent counsel; (5) admissibility of a videotape on practices and procedures of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO); and (6) the release of summary judgment exhibits for use at trial. 04/13/2004 - John Morrell & Co. v. ISO Pig (breach-of-contract claim involving hog contract; hog buyer’s motion for summary judgment: failure to comply with local rules for summary judgment motions; affidavit differing from deposition testimony; contractual right to modify pricing) 04/12/2004 - In Re McCleod USA Incorporated Securities Litigation (Class action for violation of Federal Securities Laws; defendants’ motion to dismiss; objections to United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that motion to dismiss be denied; analysis of whether complaint sufficiently particularize each defendant’s role in the alleged fraud as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b), through use of the group-published information doctrine; review of whether the complaint adequately plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter; determination of whether plaintiffs alleged specific examples of statements and omissions alleged to have been materially false and misleading.) 03/31/2004 - Knudsen v. Barnhart, Comm. of Social Security (Social Security; objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of the claimant: judicial review of ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinions of an acceptable medical source who was also a treating source; whether the progress notes signed by both a social worker and an acceptable medical source who was also a treating source were improperly discounted; the Commissioner’s burden at step five of the sequential analysis) 03/30/2004 - Webster Industries, Inc., et al. v. Northwood Doors, Inc., et al. (Removed action by creditors against insolvent corporation and related entities to recover for failure of the insolvent company to pay for goods and services that the plaintiffs provided to that defendant: plaintiffs’ unresisted motion for partial summary judgment against insolvent company on “contract” and “unjust enrichment” claims; defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on “quantum valebant,” “fraudulent transfer,” “corporate opportunities and duties,” “fraud,” and “RICO” claims) 03/25/2004 - Dunkerson v. Commissioner of Social Security (Social Security; claimant’s objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of Commissioner: judicial review of ALJ’s consideration of medications as required by Polaski; whether ALJ’s RFC contained limitations documented by the medical evidence; whether hypothetical question reflected claimants abilities) 03/24/2004 - Austin v. Ault : (Petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; objections to report and recommendation recommending denial of all claims: de novo review of claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, based on “unpreparedness,” and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, based on failure to assert trial counsel’s “unpreparedness”) 03/22/2004 - Butler v. Smithway Motor Express, Inc. (Employment discrimination case dismissed as sanction for failure to respond to order compelling discovery; Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment: “excusable neglect”) 03/22/2004 - Foell v. Mathes (Petition for habeas corpus relief from Iowa state court conviction under § 2254;petitioner convicted of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of a 69-year-old woman; report and recommendation prepared by magistrate judge; petitioner’s objections omission of certain facts from report and recommendation granted in part and denied in part; petitioner contends trial counsel was ineffective for not asserting a diminished responsibility defense; trial counsel recognized availability of mental defenses other than insanity; trial counsel’s decision not to offer a diminished responsibility defense reasonable in light of express wish of defendant that information in mental evaluations not be made public and in light of fact that information in mental evaluations would likely bolster State’s theory; trial counsel’s assertion of defense based on intoxication and petitioner’s suggestibility was reasonable; petitioner could not show outcome of trial was prejudiced by trial counsel’s assertion of this defense; report and recommendation accepted; writ of habeas corpus denied; certificate of appealability would not issue.) 03/19/2004 - Robert Connor, et al. v. Ault (Prisoners’ § 1983 claims; bench trial; objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment in favor of the defendants and against plaintiffs; analysis of Muslim inmates’ claims arising under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause; prison policies pursuant to the factors articulated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987); consideration of the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right would have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally; review of whether plaintiffs could point to any alternatives that fully accommodated their rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests) 03/11/2004 - Demaris v. Barnhart, Commisioner of Social Security (DeMaris v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (Social Security; claimant’s objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of Commissioner: judicial review of ALJ’s reliance on non-examining sources; whether substantial evidence existed that claimant could perform light work; review of other claimed limitations including medical evidence, daily activities, financial inability to obtain additional treatment, whether pain is controlled, work history, and claimant’s own subjective complaints) 03/04/2004 - Wegener, et al. v. Gehrke Construction, et al. (Two separate cases by injured workers after construction accident; general contractor’s motion in one case for partial summary judgment on indemnity issues and motions in both cases for partial summary judgment that it had no duty to protect subcontractors’ employees: general rule regarding general contractor’s lack of liability and exceptions; analysis of applicability of “contractual duty” exception) 03/03/2004 - Cochran v. Gehrke Construction, et al. (Two separate cases by injured workers after construction accident; general contractor’s motion in one case for partial summary judgment on indemnity issues and motions in both cases for partial summary judgment that it had no duty to protect subcontractors’ employees: general rule regarding general contractor’s lack of liability and exceptions; analysis of applicability of “contractual duty” exception) 03/03/2004 - Doctor John's v. City of Sioux City, et al.(Challenge to city’s newly amended zoning ordinances regulating the location of “adult entertainment businesses”; putative adult entertainment business’s motion for preliminary injunction: Dataphase standards for a preliminary injunction; plaintiff’s likelihood of showing constitutional invalidity of a municipal zoning ordinance regulating adult entertainment businesses under the test in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), threat of irreparable harm to First Amendment rights from potentially defective ordinance, balance of harms, and public interest in protection of First Amendment rights; scope of injunction necessary to address constitutional defect; bond requirement under Rule 65(c) and grounds for waiver; and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of city’s newly amended ordinances) 02/26/2004 - Conrad v. Eaton Corporation (Summary judgment; only issue before the court is whether summary judgment is appropriate on plaintiff’s Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim; plaintiff’s erratic and unusual behavior on the days preceding his leave, as well as the doctor’s note that plaintiff provided on the first day of his leave which stated that plaintiff should not work until further notice, were sufficient to apprise employer of plaintiff’s potential need for leave under the FMLA; after employee has notified employer of need for leave, the employer either may count the leave as FMLA leave or request medical certification; genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant requested medical certification from plaintiff; under FMLA plaintiff must establish he suffered from a “serious health condition” and due to that condition, experienced three consecutive days, or more, of incapacity; fact that plaintiff’s psychiatrist testified that plaintiff was able to perform functions of his job for another employer, just not the defendant, did not necessitate grant of summary judgment; key inquiry under the FMLA is whether plaintiff is unable to work in his current employment due to a “serious health condition”; plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to generate a genuine issue of material fact as to his inability to perform his essential job functions at Eaton Corporation; summary judgment denied.) 02/17/2004 - EEOC v. Wyeth (Employment discrimination lawsuit involving claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; defendant’s motion for summary judgment; among the issues in dispute in this litigation was whether the "harassment" employee suffered was because of employee’s sex; whether the "harassment" in question was sufficiently severe and pervasive to be actionable, and whether defendant knew or should have known that the "harassment" was because of employee’s sex.) 02/17/2004 - Knutson v. AG Processing (Judgment of this court on ordered reinstatement, back pay, attorney’s fees and damages to plaintiff; on appeal to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; plaintiff moved to compel reinstatement or in the alternative front pay; defendant subsequently moved to stay execution of judgment; monetary judgment stayed pending posting of supersedeas bond in amount agreed to by the parties; reinstatement of plaintiff to former position did not result in irreparable harm to defendant; balancing of equities favored denying motion to stay execution of the order of reinstatement; even when matter is on appeal the court retains authority to enforce its original judgment; plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement granted; interim pay from the time of original judgment until the earlier of the plaintiff’s reinstatement or decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered, but stayed pending posting of an additional supersedeas bond by defendant; as front pay was a key issue on appeal, court likely without jurisdiction to alter its original ruling denying front pay; defendant subject to civil contempt proceedings if it fails to obtain a stay from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals of this court’s order of reinstatement and does not reinstate plaintiff.) 02/13/2004 - Kaydon Acquisitions v. Custum Manufacturing, et al. (Action for indemnity following settlement of a third party’s claims in litigation in California; cross-motions for summary judgment: interpretation and construction of the indemnity provisions of the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement, including determination of whether the indemnitor had a duty “to defend” the indemnitee or an “on-going” duty to pay the indemnitee’s attorneys’ fees and costs, whether the indemnitor anticipatorily repudiated the indemnity agreement, the effect of the indemnitee’s failure to obtain the indemnitor’s written consent to settlement of the third party’s claims, and whether the resulting construction was “unreasonable” or “absurd”) 02/11/2004 - Wilson v. Sergeant (Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa; debtor/appellants appeal from bankruptcy court’s ruling sustaining Trustee’s objection to exemption of debtor’s direct payments under Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (“Farm Bill”) as public assistance benefits under Iowa Code § 627.6(8)(a); as phrase “public assistance benefit” not defined by statute, court adopts plain meaning accorded to the phrase by In re Longstreet, 246 B.R. 611, 614 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa 2000); purpose behind direct payments under the Farm Bill matched purpose behind exempting public assistance benefits; exemption of public assistance benefits by Iowa legislature without any further elaboration left to local, state, and federal governments to determine which classes of persons were ‘needy’; exemption of Farm Bill payments consistent with statutory placement of “public assistance benefits”; exemption of Farm Bill payments furthered principles behind the Farm Bill as well as general purposes behind Iowa exemption statute; judgment of bankruptcy court respectfully reversed.) 01/28/2004 - Dethmers Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co. : (patent infringement action; defendant’s motion to reconsider summary judgment of invalidity of plaintiff’s “reissue patent,” after district court’s ruling and appellate review: “reconsideration” based on purported “new authority,” the Supreme Court’s decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), including the impact of the “law of the case” doctrine and “mandate rule” in the circumstances presented, and the extent to which the Festo decision, concerning prosecution history estoppel for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, was “new” and applicable to the “recapture rule” for the validity of a reissue patent) 01/14/2004 - Bartleson v. Winnebago Industries (Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act (IWPCA) for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA; plaintiff’s motion for certification of class on IWPCA claim and defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s order granting leave to amend to add the IWPCA claim; the court considered, first, the defendant’s objections regarding “futility” of the proffered amendment and limitations on supplemental jurisdiction over the IWPCA class claim; second, the court considered the impact of its ruling with regard to supplemental jurisdiction on the plaintiff’s motion for certification pursuant to Rule 23 of a class on the IWPCA claim) 12/24/2003 - Purina Mills, LLC v. Less, et al. (Defendant-buyer repudiated long-term contract to purchase weanling pigs; aggrieved seller seeks actual damages for goods received and not yet paid for under Iowa Code § 554.2709 and contract/market damages under Iowa Code § 554.2708(1); summary judgment; plaintiff’s conversion from an incorporation to a limited liability company did not preclude plaintiff from being a proper party in interest; summary judgment granted as to seller’s claim for damages for goods received by defendants not yet paid for under Iowa Code § 554.2709; plaintiff-seller restricted to lost profits damages under Iowa Code § 554.2708(2) where undisputed material facts showed that the seller (1) insulated itself from market price fluctuations through adjacent third-party supply contract, (2) was given option by supplier to buyout of its adjacent third-party supply contract days after defendants repudiation, and (3) would be overcompensated by an award of contract/market damages; amount of award representing future lost profits reduced to present value; plaintiff entitled to interest on damages award.) 12/22/2003 - In Re Application of Brant : (Application to proceed in forma pauperis; order requiring filing of application effective date that applicant attempted to file it, but denying application for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, because application fails to identify the “nature of the action”) 12/22/2003 - Ricklefs v. Orman, et al. (Employment discrimination (sexually hostile work environment) pursuant to Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act; defendant’s motion for summary judgement; analysis of whether plaintiff generated a genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s alleged acts of sexual harassment led to her constructive discharge; examination of whether plaintiff could prove that she was subjected to intolerable working conditions; analysis of whether plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim fails as a matter of law because she abruptly quit without giving her employer a chance to work out the alleged problem; consideration of defendants’ claim that that they were entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense; analysis of whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that after-acquired evidence of plaintiff’s drug use bars recovery for her unlawful discharge) 12/19/2003 - McKinney v. New Cooperative, Inc., et al. (Employment discrimination lawsuit pursuant to Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act: defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims of a sexually hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge) 12/11/2003 - Cochran v. Gehrke, Inc. and National Tank Corporation(Litigation after construction accident; general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment on cross-claim of contractual indemnity against sub-contractor: principles of Iowa law regarding contractual indemnity, including interpretation and construction of indemnity provisions, indemnity for indemnitee’s own negligence, and roles of court and jury in determination of indemnity claim) 11/24/2003 - Peda v.Fort Dodge Animal Health (Suit by former employee against former employer alleging a claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act for recovery of lost wages and an Iowa common law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy; summary judgment; diversity jurisdiction; Iowa conflicts of law principles dictated that Iowa statute of limitations be applied to wage collection claim; wage collection claim could not be saved by Iowa’s “savings statute” (Iowa Code § 614.10) as claim when originally filed was outside of the applicable two-year statute of limitations; federal law applied to determine the preclusive effect the prior judgment had on the wrongful termination claim; state-law wrongful termination claim barred by doctrine of res judicata; defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted and plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment denied.) 11/24/2003 - Williams, et al v. Security National Bank ((Remainder beneficiaries’ suit against trustee for mismanagement of trust; remainder beneficiaries’ motion to dismiss trustees counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy: whether claims as pleaded are so at odds with documents supporting those claims as to require dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) 11/06/2003 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Ottawa Plant Food, Inc. (Patent infringement action for unlicensed resale of seed corn; parties’ motions in limine: motions to exclude evidence from experts under Daubert, to exclude evidence of settlement with other defendants, to exclude evidence of equitable defenses in jury trial, to exclude statements defendant purportedly obtained from state and federal agencies regarding lawfulness of its conduct, to exclude evidence of an opinion of counsel of non-infringement purportedly obtained by defendant but as to which defendant has asserted attorney-client and work-product privileges, and to exclude plaintiff’s evidence of reasonable royalties as sanction for failure to disclose other royalty agreements; defendant’s motion for advisory jury on equitable defenses) 10/24/2003 - Jimenez v. Duran (Employees’ action for violation of FLSA overtime and payroll deduction provisions, breach of contract, and wrongful discharge; parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment on overtime pay portion of FLSA claim: application of the “Holly Farms analysis” to assertion of an “agricultural employee” exemption from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12)) 10/20/2003 - Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Bottlers of Iowa, Inc. (Race discrimination (disparate treatment) pursuant to Title VII; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, including “qualification,” adverse employment action, and treatment of similarly situated persons; further showings required and modification of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm in light of Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m)) 10/07/2003 - Soto v. John Morrell & Co. (Suit by former employee against former employer alleging sexually hostile work environment, retaliation, racially hostile work environment,quid pro quo sexual harassment and pendent state law claims under Iowa Code Chapter 216; motion for summary judgment; defendant not entitled to summary judgment on claim of sexually hostile work environment as genuine issues of material fact remains as to whether plaintiff suffered a tangible employment action and whether employer’s anti-harassment policy was effective; quid pro quo claim reasonably related to allegations in plaintiff’s administrative complaint; employer not entitled to summary judgment on quid pro quo claim as genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether plaintiff suffered tangible job detriment; summary judgment granted as to racially hostile work environment claim where only evidence of racial harassment was that offending supervisor used Spanish slang to describe female genitalia; summary judgment granted as to retaliation claim where no actionable adverse employment action taken.) 10/06/2003 - Kenyon v. State of Ia. & Honorable Gary Wenell (Public employee’s suit for wrongful discharge against State of Iowa and state court judge; defendants’ motion to dismiss: Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State and a state official to suit, including whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 abrogates such immunity, whether the Iowa Tort Claims Act waives immunity to suit in federal court, the extent of immunity for a state official in his official and individual capacities, and the presumption of official capacity where no capacity is pleaded; whether other officials who voted on the public employee’s termination are indispensable parties to the suit) 09/30/2003 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Ottawa Plant Food, Inc. (Patent infringement action for unlicensed resale of seed corn; parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on liability issues: applicability of "first sale" or "patent exhaustion" doctrine, restrictions and notice of restrictions in "limited label license," enforceability of "limited label license"; defendant’s motion for summary judgment on damages issues: satisfaction of "marking" statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287, damages for infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, full compensation from prior sale, and increased damages for "willful" infringement) 09/29/2003 - Schultzen v. Woodbury Central Community School District (Joint Motion to Dismiss; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); review and discussion of factors the court considers when deciding whether parties’ joint motion to dismiss should be granted). 09/16/2003 - Furleigh v. Allied Group, Inc. (Suit by former employee against former employer claiming entitlement to ERISA benefits; motion for summary judgment; plaintiff claims total disability; defendants not entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as application of plan’s reasonable contractual limitation period to the accrual date dictated by the discovery rule resulted in finding that plaintiff’s suit was timely commenced; summary judgment appropriate as plaintiff unable to generate genuine issues of material fact that he was disabled under the plan before his retirement.) 09/08/2003 - Central States, et al. v. McCullough : (Action by former employer against former employee for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Iowa Trade Secrets Act; defendant’s motion to strike affidavits in resistance to summary judgment motion: Rule 56(e) requirements, contradiction of prior testimony, Rule 37 sanctions for failure to disclose witness; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: contract claims: capacity to contract, adequacy of consideration, whether contract was superseded, breach by removal, retention, and disclosure of secret or proprietary information; Trade Secrets Act: "trade secrets" and "misappropriation"; breach of fiduciary duty: scope of duty of loyalty, disclosure of proprietary information, solicitation of employees) 09/03/2003 - Morgan v. Morgan (Petition for Return of Child pursuant to The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (CCAICA), and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.; Temporary Restraining Order and Order for Expedited Hearing; Order to Appear at Show Cause Hearing) 08/28/2003 - Terra Industries, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company (Terra Industries, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance, Commercial litigation, diversity action; cross-motions for summary judgment; analysis of whether insured’s claimed losses from products liability lawsuits exceeded the applicable limits of underlying insurance coverage required by an excess insurance policy such that the insurer would be required to pay insurer under its excess policy) 08/27/2003 - Eischeid v. Dover Construction, Inc., et al. (Suit by injured employee of subcontractor against general contractor and third-party indemnity claims by and among general contractor and two subcontractors; employee’s motion to extend dispositive motion deadline granted; employee’s motion for summary judgment on liability portion of “direct” negligence claim against general contractor, based on “contractual” and “control of the job” liability theories, granted; employee’s motion to sever trial on indemnity claims from trial on damages issues on “direct” negligence claim granted; and employee’s motion to intervene in third-party indemnity action as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) denied, but permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) granted). 08/25/2003 - Silent Drive Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., et al. (Patent law; motion to transfer, stay or dismiss; determination of whether the balance of convenience exception or the compelling circumstance exception to the first-filed rule warrants the dismissal of the case; analysis of whether the court should abstain from considering case pursuant to the Pullman abstention doctrine.) 08/07/2003 - Deakins v. Barnhart (Social Security; objections to report and recommendation recommending judgment enter in favor of Commissioner: judicial review of ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinions of doctors; whether ALJ conducted a proper credibility analysis when she considered personal observations of claimant during hearing, claimant’s daily activities, and alleged short attention span) 08/06/2003 - Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C. (Action by advocacy agency for the developmentally disabled and mentally ill against treatment institution regarding access by the advocacy agency to patients, facilities, and records of the treatment institution; advocacy agency’s motion for contempt of court’s "final order" for failure of treatment facility to disclose of the names of residents and the names and addresses of legal guardians: standards for civil contempt; determination of whether either terms of the "final order" or governing statutes and regulations incorporated into the "final order" required the disclosures demanded by the advocacy agency) 08/04/2003 - State Auto Mutual Insurance v. Dover Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff insurer’s motion for declaratory relief. Plaintiff sought declaration that it had no duty to defend the defendant, Dover, in underlying personal injury action against Dover, nor a duty to indemnify Dover for any damages arising out of its own negligence. Dover conceded there was no duty to indemnify for its own negligence but argued it was subject to being held liable for the negligence of its subcontractor and, therefore, under the Subcontract Agreement between Dover and the subcontractor, the duty to defend extended beyond its concession that there was no duty to indemnify Dover for its own negligence. Plaintiff argued that the personal injury plaintiff sought only to hold the defendant liable for its own negligence, but the court found that the personal injury plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to plead a "nondelegable duty" theory, which would subject Dover to potential liability for the subcontractor’s negligence. Therefore, because there is a potential duty to indemnify, there is a coterminous duty to defend. ) 07/30/2003 - Knutson v. AG Processing (Post-trial motions on perceived disability case after jury entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff worked as boiler operator and suffered from several injuries that impeded his ability to perform the manual labor portion of his job but did not affect his ability to supervise the control room. Evidence was sufficient to conclude that manual labor tasks were ordinary functions of the boiler operator position, but marginal, nonessential functions. Evidence was also sufficient to support jury’s conclusion that employer-defendant regarded the plaintiff as disabled and discharged him because of his perceived disability. Punitive damages were also appropriate based, in part, on substantial evidence that employer’s offered reason for termination was pretextual. Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law denied. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, at hourly rate of $200, and expenses granted.) 07/28/2003 - Sanft, et al. v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. et al. (Declaratory judgment action for determination of benefits due under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; Motion for Amendment of Order Denying Class Certification in which plaintiffs request that the court reconsider its decision to deny class certification in this case and grant class certification to the proposed class, and Motion To Strike Affidavit; analysis of whether statements in affidavit from putative class members constitute "mental impressions" that are an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3); analysis of whether the fact that some potential class members remain employed by defendant supports a finding that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied and is sufficient to require the court to reverse its previous decision that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the proposed class meets the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 23(a)(1). 07/28/2003 - Henrich v. Barnhart (Social Security; objections to report and recommendation recommending reversal and award of disability benefits: judicial review of ALJ’s assessment of claimant's subjective complaints; rejection of the opinions of medical and vocational experts relying on those complaints; whether ALJ conducted proper Polaski analysis) 07/10/2003 - Wells' Dairy v. Travelers Indemnity Co, et al. (Commercial litigation; diversity action; motion to enforce court order regarding insurer’s duty to defend insured; review of the degree of autonomy insured may exercise in selecting its own defense counsel, and analysis of whether insurer is liable for insured’s attorney’s fees, in light of the fact that insurer refused to defend insured under a reservation of rights; analysis of whether, under Iowa law, the question of what amount constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee is an issue of fact to be determined as any other issue of fact.) 07/09/2003 - White v. Kautzky (Prisoner’s § 1983 "access to courts" claim; review of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on defendants’ motion for summary judgment: whether there are genuine issues of material fact on "reasonable opportunity to present claims" and "actual injury" elements where "contract attorneys" at prison allegedly failed to provide any advice on the viability of a potential claim for post-conviction relief) 07/03/2003 - Schneider v. Jergens, et al. (Habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; motion to dismiss challenge to constitutionality of the review procedure for criminal contempt convictions: procedural default, exhaustion of state remedies and alleged "ineffectiveness" of such remedies, and dismissal or amendment of a"“mixed petition" asserting exhausted and unexhausted claims) 06/26/2003 - Faber v. Menard, Inc. (Employee’s claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and state law; defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s post-Circuit City challenge to enforceability of arbitration clause under state law: adequacy of consideration in mutual promises and continued employment, and procedural and substantive unconscionability of arbitration clause in adhesion contract that requires employee to bear his own costs and attorney fees in arbitration and half the costs of the arbitrator; court’s sua sponte certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)) 06/17/2003 - LeStrange v. Fortis Beneficiary Insurance Co. (Lawsuit filed pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in which plaintiff alleges that defendant's denial of coverage for long term disability benefits breached defendant's long term disability insurance benefits policy) 06/13/2003 - Baker v. John Morrell & Co. (After jury in Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation case returned 1.52 million dollar verdict in favor of plaintiff, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add parallel state-law claims. Court denied amendment on March 17, 2003, and plaintiff moved to reconsider. Motion to reconsider granted, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 15(b), and 54(c). Accordingly, Title VII’s statutory damages cap did not limit plaintiff’s recovery to $300,000. Court then considered defendant’s motion to amend judgment because, post-trial, defendant sought remittal of the emotional distress damages and punitive damages --- arguments the court did not address in its previous ruling because of the damages cap. Evidence was sufficient to support jury’s awards of compensatory and punitive damages and awards were not grossly excessive. Punitive damages reduced in accordance with statutory damages cap.) 06/11/2003 - Nelson v. Long Lines (LTD; Rule 8(a)(2); Rule 8(a)(3); defendants’ motion to strike and application of standards; determination of whether complaint contained immaterial, impertinent and redundant matter, prejudiced the defendants, included events occurring outside the limitations period, and included legal conclusions; defendants’ motion for more definite statement as to time the alleged events occurred; defendants’ motion to dismiss claim of breach of good faith and fair dealing during employment and application of standards.) 06/11/2003 - Lyons v. Midwest Glazing, d/b/a Eddy's Glass & Door (Bench trial on the merits; plaintiff was third-party beneficiary to contract selling business, sales agreement provided plaintiff "for cause" job protection; defendant terminated plaintiff for abusing company’s paid time off policy and for being poor influence on workforce’s morale; plaintiff alleged breach; court found defendant’s reasons for terminating the plaintiff were bona fide reasons and were cause for termination; defendant also counter-claimed for tortious interference with contractual relationships and breach of fiduciary duty; court found that, by failing to identify counter-claims and bases thereof in final pre-trial order, the counter-claims were waived.) 06/06/2003 - Eischeid v. Dover Construction, et al. ("Direct" and third-party claims arising from a construction accident; motions for summary judgment on claims by and against defendant, third-party defendant, and third-party plaintiff Woods Masonry: whether plaintiff’s "direct" negligence claims against his employer/subcontractor are barred by the "exclusive remedy" provisions of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA); whether the contractor’s contribution, indemnity, and breach-of-contract claims against the subcontractor/employer are also barred by the IWCA; whether the subcontractor/employer’s third-party claim against another subcontractor are barred by purported admissions of the subcontractor/employer’s president that the subcontractor and its employees "did nothing wrong") 06/03/2003 - Van Beek Global, et al. v. Ninkov (Diversity Tort Actions; motion to remand; motion to dismiss, stay or transfer; analysis of a limited liability company's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; review of local action doctrine and analysis of whether case here was local or transitory in nature.) 06/02/2003 - Van Beek, et al. v. Ninkov, et al.(Diversity Tort Actions; motion to remand; motion to dismiss, stay or transfer; analysis of a limited liability company's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; review of local action doctrine and analysis of whether case here was local or transitory in nature.) 06/02/2003 - Munsen v. Wellmark (ERISA; trial on the merits in case involving administrator’s discontinuation of benefits for private duty nursing for five-year-old quadriplegic child; applicable standards of review for plan administrator’s factual findings and interpretations of plan terms; review of interpretation of terms under five-factor test and review of factual determinations under "substantial evidence" standard; relief available in action under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B)) 05/27/2003 - Baker v. John Morrell & Co. (Post-trial motion to amend judgment and motion for attorney’s fees in employment discrimination case; plaintiff prevailed at trial in sexual discrimination Title VII suit; plaintiff seeks front pay; consideration of mitigation of damages for quitting job for personal reasons and whether plaintiff’s decision to change career fields would make an award of front pay equivalent to a subsidy of her decision to change careers; determination of "reasonable fee"; considering reductions for duplicative efforts and time not reasonably compensable, partial success) 05/21/2003 - Walker Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc, et al. (Suit for interference with intellectual property rights and business; defendant’s second motion for partial summary judgment: applicability of doctrine of de minimis non curat lex to "reverse palming off" claims under the Copyright Act and Lanham Act; cognizability of "copying" claim as "reverse palming off"; requirement of "actual consumer confusion" to obtain money damages for "reverse palming off"; availability of permanent injunctive relief; impact of possibility of "reverse engineering" on definition of a "trade secret"; and availability and measure of money damages, including a "reasonable royalty," for misappropriation of trade secrets) 05/12/2003 - Sanft, et al. v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., et al (Declaratory judgment action for determination of benefits due under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; motion for class certification; discussion of the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a); analysis of first requirement of Rule 23(a), that plaintiff show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,” including consideration of: the size of the proposed class, the geographical dispersion of the class members, whether members of a prospective class are able to be identified, the financial resources of the potential class members with regard to their ability to institute individual lawsuits, that some potential class members are still employed by defendant, and the judicial efficiency in certifying a class versus trying individual lawsuits.) 05/07/2003 - Gaston v. The Restaurant Co. (Disparate treatment claim under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, chapter 216 of the Iowa Code, disability discrimination claim under ADA, and supplemental state law claim alleging violation of Iowa public policy: plaintiff worked as a food production manager for defendant until his termination, defendant moved for summary judgment on ground plaintiff could not generate jury questions on his claims; analysis of whether (a) plaintiff established that disability was a factor in his discharge, (b) requisite adversity of alleged employment actions in context of disparate treatment claim, (c) whether plaintiff established causal connection between plaintiff’s pursuit of his workers’ compensation rights and the consequent termination of plaintiff.) 05/05/2003 - Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad Corporation v. Pay Load, Inc. (Diversity tort action; motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); analysis of corporation's principal place of business for purposes of ascertaining the existence or lack of federal diversity jurisdiction. 04/29/2003 - Millage v. City of Sioux City (ADA suit alleging "perceived disability" discrimination and "record of disability" discrimination; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: timeliness of an administrative charge filed first with the EEOC, not a state agency, in a "deferral state"; ability of plaintiff, an insulin-dependent diabetic, to perform the "essential functions" of his job as a City bus driver, including consideration of the validity of "blanket exclusions," the need for "individualized assessment" of a claimant’s ability to perform a job, and the impact of purportedly inconsistent statements by the claimant concerning his ability to perform the job and the adequacy of his explanations for such inconsistencies) 04/25/2003 - Dahlin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (ERISA; cross motions for summary judgment: abuse of discretion; interpretation of plan and analysis of factors to be considered; determination of whether there was substantial evidence to support plan administrator’s decision. ) 04/09/2003 - Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department, et al. (Civil rights; motion to dismiss; assessment of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); analysis of defendants’ claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity.) 04/07/2003 - DIRECTV v. Meyer, et al. (Suit involving alleged piracy of satellite television broadcasts; plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment and defendant’s motion to set aside default: standards to set aside entry of default as opposed to entry of default judgment) 04/04/2003 - Miller v. Wells Dairy, Inc. (Disability and Age discrimination in violation of the ADA and ADEA, and supplemental state law claim alleging violation of Iowa public policy: plaintiff worked as a lab tech for defendant until her termination, defendant moved for summary judgment on ground plaintiff could not generate jury questions on her claims; analysis of whether (a) plaintiff established that age was a factor in her discharge, (b) plaintiff was actually disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act or whether defendant regarded plaintiff as disabled, and (c) whether plaintiff established causal connection between plaintiff’s pursuit of her workers’ compensation rights and the consequent termination of plaintiff.) 03/25/2003 - Bushman v. Electorlux Home Prod., et al. (Employment discrimination claims under the ADA, ADEA, and ICRA; defendant's motion for summary judgment; considering actual and perceived disability claims under the ADA and ICRA; analysis of whether plaintiff was substantially limited in any major life activities or was perceived by employer to be substantially limited in any major life activities.) 03/24/2003 - Wordekemper v. Western Iowa Homes, et al. (Employment disability discrimination claims under the ADA and ICRA and common-law claim of retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits; defendants’ motion for summary judgment: considering "actual," "perceived," and "record of" disability and legitimate reason/pretext; assuming a claim of "retaliatory failure to hire" will lie against a new employer for allegedly refusing to hire a prospective employee based on his workers’ compensation claims in prior employment, considering evidence of retaliatory intent) 03/17/2003 - Baker v. John Morrell & Co. (After jury in Title VII sex discrimination case returned 1.52 million dollar verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in alternative, new trial. Defendant also moved to amend judgment, seeking remittal of the emotional damages and punitive damages. Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict and argued that several evidentiary rulings warranted a new trial. The court overruled these arguments and denied the defendant’s motion. Plaintiff moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) to amend complaint to add parallel state-law claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Court found plaintiff did not intend to try state law claims and, therefore, that amendment was not permitted under Rule 15(b). Because court denied motion to amend, plaintiff could not allocate portion of damages to state-law claim and was, therefore, bound by Title VII $300,000 statutory damages cap. Court found that evidence supported award of $300,000 in emotional distress damages. Because of damages cap, court did not reach issue of whether punitive damages were excessive, although noting that they were supported by the evidence. Court remitted emotional damages award to $300,000, exclusive of backpay and post-judgment interest, as provided by federal law.) 03/17/2003 - Frazier v. Rogerson (Habeas corpus; motion to dismiss; review of magistrate judge's report and recommendation and petitioner's objections to report and recommendation recommending dismissal: timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)(deadline runs from date judgment is "final" and § 2244(d)(1)(D) (date factual predicate could have been discovered by due diligence); applicability of doctrine of equitable tolling of statute of limitations based on "extraordinary circumstance.") 03/04/2003 - Canady v. John Morrell & Co. (Employment case involving claims of racial and sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: evidence of animus in race- and gender-neutral harassment; sufficiency of notice to employer that harassment is allegedly based on race or sex; evidence of adverse employment action in the form of constructive discharge, and causal connection between that adverse action and protected activity, in support of a retaliation claim) 03/03/2003 - Schultzen v. Woodbury Central Comm. School District, et al. (Claims against defendant Bumsted in individual and official capacities under Title IX, section 1983, and Iowa Code Chapter 216: plaintiff was a student at Woodbury Central High School and suspended from participation in extra curricular activities after defendant reported, to school administration, plaintiff’s smoking in violation of the school district’s Good Conduct Code; defendant Bumsted moved for summary judgment on grounds that he (a) could not be liable in his individual capacity under Title IX, (b) could not be liable under section 1983 based on a violation of Title IX, (c) was not acting under color of state law or deprived plaintiff of her rights pursuant to section 1983, (d) was entitled to qualified immunity, and (e) was not liable under Iowa Code Chapter 216 because the plaintiff failed to file a charge of discrimination against him.) 02/19/2003 - Webster Industries, Inc., et al. v. Northwood Doors, Inc. (Removed action by creditors against insolvent corporation and related entities to recover for failure of the insolvent company to pay for goods and services that the plaintiffs provided to that defendant; plaintiffs’ motion for default and default judgment and defendants’ countervailing motion to set aside default entered by Clerk of Court: adequacy of personal service and service by publication under applicable federal, Iowa, and Minnesota rules of civil procedure) 02/13/2003 - Joens v. John Morrell & Co. (Sexual harassment, disparate treatment based on sex, and retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII; defendant’s motion for summary judgment: sexual harassment claim: sufficiency of evidence of gender-neutral comments to generate a genuine issue of material fact on sexual harassment, whether harassment affected a term or condition of employment based on severity and prevasiveness, whether the alleged harasser was a supervisor" or "co-worker" for purposes of employer liability based on his status as "a foreman," what notice is sufficient to inform employer that alleged harassment is "based on sex"; disparate treatment and retaliation claims: whether an overtime disparity constitutes "adverse employment action," and sufficient of evidence to generate a genuine issue of material fact on discriminatory or retaliatory animus) 02/07/2003 - Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, et al. (Commercial litigation; diversity action; cross-motions for partial summary judgment; motion to strike affidavit filed in support of motion for partial summary judgment; appeal of magistrate judge’s decision denying motion to stay; review of standards for construing terms in an insurance contract; review of insurer’s duty to defend its insured; analysis of whether claims had been asserted against the insured for "property damage," as defined in a commercial general liability policy and a commercial excess insurance policy; analysis of insured’s first-party bad faith claim and review of whether insurer’s denial of coverage and refusal to defend insured was fairly debatable; analysis of whether two defendant insurance companies were properly named as defendants in case when neither defendant issued either policy at issue in the litigation; analysis of the appropriateness of staying declaratory relief action concerning insurance coverage pending resolution of the underlying state cases.) 01/31/2003 - dePape v. Trinity Health Systems et al. (Bench trial; foreign physician (Canadian) contracted with defendants Trinity and Trimark to be family physician, Trinity retained an out-of-state law firm to represent physician in his immigration to United States; law firm never contacted physician or explained immigration process; physician showed up at United States border ready to begin his new life and career in the United States, but because his position did not match the position described in the INS application, INS denied his entry and physician was unable to gain entry to U.S.; physician sued Trinity and Trimark under theories of contract and promissory estoppel, but there was no basis in fact or law to hold these defendants liable; law firm, however, breached its duty to advise and communicate with the plaintiff; the law firm’s breach caused the plaintiff to forego employment options in Canada; court awarded $278,736.20, plus pre-judgment interest, for lost income and emotional distress damages.) 01/20/2003 Criminal - U.S. v. Amaya (Motion to suppres, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress and denying defendant’s motion to suppress in which he seeks to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence conducted pursuant to a search warrant, during a consent search of his parents’ trailer home, and during a search of his vehicle, finding: the search warrant affidavit, when considered in a commonsense, practical way, would lead a prudent person to believe that there was a fair probability that drugs or evidence of drug sales would be found in defendant’s residence. Accordingly, probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. In addition, concluding that even if there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant, the Leon good-faith exception applies because a reasonably well-trained officer would not have known that the search was illegal despite the issuing magistrate’s authorization. Finally, considering the totality of the information provided to the state magistrate, the search warrant for defendant’s residence was not based on stale information. 09/06/2011 - U.S. v. Billy Williams, Sr. (sentencing of a defendant on four crack cocaine offenses after the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act and amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced the crack-to-powder ratio from 100:1 to 18:1: consideration of whether to reject the “new” ratio in the Guidelines, on categorical, policy grounds, as the court had previously rejected the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio; adoption of a methodology for imposing sentence using an initial guidelines calculation with an 18:1 ratio and an alternative guidelines calculation using a 1:1 ratio, both recognizing new guidelines enhancements for aggravating circumstances, and ultimate determination of the appropriate sentence in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)) 04/07/2011 - U.S. v. Steven Vandebrake (Criminal law, sentencing memorandum opinion and order regarding joint sentencing of two defendants convicted of anitrust violations of the Sherman Act. For one defendant, after considering the totality of the circumstances in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court found that a upward variance from the advisory guidelines sentencing range was warranted and imposed a sentence of 48 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release during which defendant will be required to complete 500 hours of community service, at a rate of not less than 25 hours per month. The court further found that an upward variance from the advisory guidelines fine range was warranted for the defendant and imposed a fine of $829,715.85, and a special assessment of $100. The court, alternatively, imposed sentences of 27 months imprisonment on each Count; with all 27 months of the sentence on Count 3, 15 months of the sentence on Count 1, and 6 months of the sentence on Count 2 running consecutively; for a total sentence of 48 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. With respect to the second defendant, the court found that the prosecution did not breach its plea agreement with the defendant and, as a result, the court could proceed with his sentencing. The court denied his requests for downward departure under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K1.1, 5K2.0, 5K2.11, and 5K2.12. The court further found that a variance from the advisory guidelines sentencing range was unwarranted for the defendant and imposed a sentence of 12 months and a day of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release during which the defendant will be required to complete 100 hours of community service, at a rate of not less than 20 hours per month. The court also imposed a fine on the defendant in the amount of $83,427.09. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution to Tri-Zack Contractor in the sum of $25,981.80.) 02/08/2011 - U.S. v. Kent Robert Stewart (Criminal law, sentencing memorandum opinion and order regarding joint sentencing of two defendants convicted of anitrust violations of the Sherman Act. For one defendant, after considering the totality of the circumstances in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court found that a upward variance from the advisory guidelines sentencing range was warranted and imposed a sentence of 48 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release during which defendant will be required to complete 500 hours of community service, at a rate of not less than 25 hours per month. The court further found that an upward variance from the advisory guidelines fine range was warranted for the defendant and imposed a fine of $829,715.85, and a special assessment of $100. The court, alternatively, imposed sentences of 27 months imprisonment on each Count; with all 27 months of the sentence on Count 3, 15 months of the sentence on Count 1, and 6 months of the sentence on Count 2 running consecutively; for a total sentence of 48 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. With respect to the second defendant, the court found that the prosecution did not breach its plea agreement with the defendant and, as a result, the court could proceed with his sentencing. The court denied his requests for downward departure under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K1.1, 5K2.0, 5K2.11, and 5K2.12. The court further found that a variance from the advisory guidelines sentencing range was unwarranted for the defendant and imposed a sentence of 12 months and a day of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release during which the defendant will be required to complete 100 hours of community service, at a rate of not less than 20 hours per month. The court also imposed a fine on the defendant in the amount of $83,427.09. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution to Tri-Zack Contractor in the sum of $25,981.80.) 02/08/2011 - U.S. v. Villagomez: (criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, theft from a program receiving federal funds, and bribery; ruling after evidentiary hearing settling the record, pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, concerning closure of the courtroom to members of the public during jury selection) 11/24/2010 - U.S. v. Mayer (criminal prosecution on charges of sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2251(e); receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2252A(b)(1); and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A(b)(2); prosecution’s Rule 104 motion to admit evidence of factual stipulations in a plea agreement on which the defendant failed to follow through, pursuant to a waiver of the rights protected by Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence if the defendant breached the plea agreement) 10/19/2010 - U.S. v. Kevin Mcmanaman (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress and denying defendant’s motion to suppress in which he seeks to suppress statements made after his arrest as well as a evidence recovered from his home, finding: that the rule of collateral estoppel applied in this case, and concluded that defendant was estopped by prior ruling from relitigating the issue of probable cause to search his house for drugs and drug paraphernalia; that based on the evidence the law enforcement officers had at the time of the defendant’s arrest, a search warrant could have been issued which would have allowed the police to search for guns and ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia, and the ensuing search would have led inevitably to discovery of incriminating photographs which appear to depict underage females; that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel for the current charges had not attached at the time of his questioning in 2008, and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not bar the officers from questioning defendant in regard to the current offenses; that the non-testimonial evidence obtained as a result of defendant’s incriminating statements made in violation of Miranda are admissible because the defendant’s statements were made voluntarily, and were not the result of coercion; and that defendant’s wife consented to a search of a locked room and a locked closet in the house they shared and that defendant’s wife had either actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of the entire residence. ) 10/18/2010 - U.S. v. Miell (sentencing of landlord convicted of 18 counts of mail fraud, 2 counts of perjury, and 2 counts of filing of false tax returns arising from insurance fraud and damage deposit fraud schemes: restitution for fraud schemes pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, and “restitution” for tax offenses in the conditions for supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)) 10/04/2010 - U.S. v. Miell : (sentencing of landlord convicted of 18 counts of mail fraud, 2 counts of perjury, and 2 counts of filing of false tax returns arising from insurance fraud and damage deposit fraud schemes: applicability of upward adjustments for amount of loss, number of victims, sophisticated means, substantial interference with administration of justice, abuse of a position of trust, and obstruction of justice; applicability of downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility; determination of whether and to what extent to vary upward from the advisory sentencing guidelines range in light of the damage deposit fraud scheme, which preyed on people too economically vulnerable or unsophisticated to contest the landlord’s claims for relatively little gain in individual cases, but amounting to over a million dollars in losses in aggregate) 09/27/2010 - U.S. v. Villagomez, et al.(criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, theft from a program receiving federal funds, and bribery; reconsideration of denial of defendants’ motion pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to settle the record concerning whether members of the public were entirely excluded from jury selection) 09/07/2010 - U.S. v. Villagomez, et al (criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, theft from a program receiving federal funds, and bribery; defendants’ motion pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to settle the record concerning whether members of the public were entirely excluded from jury selection) 08/06/2010 - U.S. v. Kent Robinson (Motion for change of venue; analysis of ten factors identified in Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240 (1964)-(1) the location of the defendant, (2) location of possible witnesses; (3) location of events likely to be in issue; (4) location of documents and records likely to be involved; (5) disruption of defendant’s business unless the case is transferred; (6) expense to the parties; (7) location of counsel; (8) relative accessibility of the place of trial; (9) docket condition of each district; and (10) any other special elements which might affect the transfer-in deciding whether to transfer the case from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to the District of Columbia.) 07/29/2010 - U.S. v. Kevin Moes (Motion to dismiss, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to dismiss, concerning charges that defendant knowingly failed to register and update his sex offender registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), the court held that SORNA applies to defendant because both Iowa and Nebraska had sex offender registries during the time the defendant is alleged to have traveled between these states and failed to register in accordance with SORNA, and concluding that application of SORNA’s penalty provision to defendant did not violate due process because the defendant received adequate notice of his duty to register in Iowa to satisfy due process.) 05/11/2010 - U.S. v. Kent Robinson (criminal prosecution on charges of fraudulent uttering of a private security, with making and uttering a fictitious obligation, and mail fraud; prosecution’s motions to supplement the record regarding the defendant’s detention after the court expressed serious concerns about the prosecution’s failure to seek a detention hearing or written detention order during a hearing on the pro se defendant’s motion to revoke the detention order) 05/11/2010 - U.S. v. Miell (Motion to withdraw guilty pleas pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11; after pleading guilty to the charged mail fraud and perjury offenses, defendant sought to withdraw guilty pleas on the ground that his guilty pleas were invalid because the court failed to advise him of the maximum possible sentence he faced and the court’s authority to order restitution; defendant also asserted that his counsel’s ineffective assistance constituted a fair and just reason to permit him to withdraw his guilty pleas; examination of whether the court informed defendant of the maximum penalties he was facing for each of the mail fraud and perjury counts; analysis of whether Rule 11 requires a court to specifically advise the defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentencing; assessment of whether the court’s error in failing to inform defendant of the possibility of restitution affected his substantial rights; analysis of whether defendant should be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas because he was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel; assessment of other Rule 11 factors of defendant’s innocence, the timing of his motion, and whether the prosecution will be prejudiced by defendant’s withdrawal of guilty pleas) 05/10/2010 - U.S. v. Paul Riesselman (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding motion to suppress, granting in part and denying in defendant’s Motion to Suppress; concluding that defendant’s Motion to Suppress should be granted as to drugs seized from his person because the prosecution conceded the pat-down search of defendant by law enforcement officers was neither authorized by a search warrant nor reasonable under the circumstances; finding that a cellular telephone, that was also seized during the same search of defendant’s person, should be suppressed for the same reasons as the drugs; rejected defendant’s argument that all evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for his residence should be suppressed because law enforcement officers executing the search warrant failed to provide him with a complete copy of the search warrant; rejecting defendant’s contention that statement he made to law enforcement officers should be suppressed because it was the product of the unlawful search of his person; and, finding that, with respect to defendant’s statements concerning drugs and cellular telephone found on him, that the prosecution had met its burden of proving that the connection between the illegal search of defendant’s person and his statement was so attenuated as to dissipate the taint of the illegal search, and concluding that defendant’s statement was given freely, and was not coerced or procured though exploitation of the illegal seizure of the drugs or cellular telephone. 04/28/2010 - U.S. v. Villagomez, et al (08cr20) : (criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, theft from a program receiving federal funds, and bribery; defendants’ joint renewed motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) for release from custody while their convictions are on appeal, heard as a visiting judge to the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan): whether the defendants asserted a “fairly debatable” claim of violation of their Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, arising from the trial judge’s refusal to release unoccupied reserved seats to members of the general public) 04/22/2010 - U.S. v. Norita & Sablan (criminal prosecution on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine against both defendants and a gun charge against one defendant heard as a visiting judge to the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan); prosecution’s motions in limine to exclude evidence of defendants’ drug addiction, any mention of penalties, to exclude prior criminal histories of confidential informants) 04/07/2010 - U.S. v. Norita & Sablan (criminal prosecution on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine against both defendants and a gun charge against one defendant heard as a visiting judge to the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan); one defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of prosecution’s motion to dismiss indictment) 04/06/2010 - U.S. v. Norita & Sablan (criminal prosecution on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine against both defendants and a gun charge against one defendant heard as a visiting judge to the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan); prosecution’s motion to dismiss indictment rather than produce DEA manuals as ordered as a sanction for failure to disclose sections of the manuals: court’s determination that the motion to dismiss was moot upon reconsideration of the underlying discovery dispute) 04/02/2010 - U.S. v. Sablan (Motion to suppress, order finding that defendant had made sufficient showing to be entitled to evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), but denying motion to suppress because defendant had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the search warrant affiant knowingly and intentionally included false information, or did so with reckless disregard for the truth, and alternatively, even were the court to assume, arguendo, that defendant could show that the affiant included intentional falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth and set aside those allegations, the court would nevertheless conclude that the supporting affidavit otherwise provided probable cause for the search.) 03/31/2010 - U.S. v. Norita & Sablan (criminal prosecution on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine against both defendants and a gun charge against one defendant heard as a visiting judge to the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan); defendants’ pretrial motions for discovery sanctions against the prosecution for failure to disclose sections of a DEA Laboratory Operations Manual and sections of a DEA Agent’s Field Manual, one defendant’s motion to sever the gun charge against the other defendant for separate trial, and one defendant’s motion for appointment of her retained counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act) 03/29/2010 - U.S. v. Sandra Hanson (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress, finding: that while the search and seizure occurred after a warning citation had been issued, the law enforcement officer’s continued detention of defendant in order to permit a drug dog sniff was justified by that officer’s reasonable suspicion that criminal activity unrelated to the stop was afoot; that the information from the informant was not stale and could be relied upon to support a finding of reasonable suspicion; that the fact that a drug dog’s initial failure to indicate on defendant’s pickup truck did not negate the other facts and information supporting the existence of reasonable suspicion; that defendant consented to having a drug sniffing dog enter the back of her truck, which resulted in the discovery of marijuana in the vehicle.) 03/19/2010 - U.S. v. Tony Golden (Sentencing on charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute crack, and distributing crack within 1,000 feet of a public playground or school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841, and 860; reiteration of categorical rejection in Gully of 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio in Sentencing Guidelines and selection of 1:1 ratio as the reasoned alternative in this and all crack cases, demonstrating appropriateness of applying 1:1 ratio in all cases, then varying (upward, in this case), if necessary, based on case-specific factors, including this defendant’s prior conviction for attempted murder, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)) 01/12/2010 - U.S. v. David Stephens (Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s order denying prosecution’s request to amend defendant’s conditions of release, concluding the Adam Walsh Amendments to the Bail Reform Act, which require that those on pretrial release for specified offenses be subject to curfew and electronic monitoring requirements, regardless of individual circumstances, facially violate the Due Process Clause.) 11/17/2009 - U.S. v. Eric Graham (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress, finding: that the supporting affidavits for search warrant application clearly contained information which provided a substantial basis for finding a “fair probability” that contraband or evidence of illegal activity could be found in the buildings at defendant’s residence, and that law enforcement officers did not impermissibly exceed the scope of search warrant in their search. 10/15/2009 - U.S. v. Mosley (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress, finding: that defendant’s freedom of movement was not restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest at the time he was interviewed by the police and no Miranda warning was required to be given to defendant prior to interview, and that defendant’