|
Case Name |
Date Filed |
 - | Vanbogart v. Astrue -- Order denying motion for EAJA fees as untimely. | 11/17/2009 |
| - | Great Lakes Comm. Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of one clause of IUB Order requiring reclamation of all telephone numbers assigned to Great Lakes. In considering the Dataphase factors, and in particular the plaintiff's likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the court analyzed the IUB Order and applicable regulations and recommended that a preliminary injunction be issued. | 11/17/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Great Lakes Comm. Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board - Order on Motions to Intervene and to Add Parties. In action to enjoin enforcement of order issued by Iowa Utilities Board, court found Qwest Communications Corp. and Sprint Communications Co. to be indispensable parties, and granted their motions to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, and the Board's motion to join them as parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. | 11/10/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Stephens -- Order denying Government's motion to amend conditions of pretrial release to include electronic monitoring and curfew. Court found unconstitutional the Adam Walsh Act amendments to the Bail Reform Act requiring mandatory imposition of curfew and electronic monitoring without an individual determination of whether the facts of the case required those conditions of pretrial release. | 10/27/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Whitacre v. Energy Panel Structures, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend Petition at Law. Court found plaintiff was not seeking to add non-diverse parties for the purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction, and held the amendment should be allowed. | 09/30/2009 |
| - | Gacke v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Court found substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled due to obesity, or difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace. | 09/28/2009 |
| - | USA v. Graham -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during execution of a search warrant at his residence. Court found there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant and sufficient indicia of validity for the executing officers to rely on the warrant, and the warrant adequately described the places to be searched. | 09/28/2009 |
| - | USA v. Martinez-Pena -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found in his vehicle. Defendant was stopped for speeding. He was cited for driving without a license, and vehicle was seized to install a tracking device pursuant to a warrant. While installing the device, officers found drugs in the vehicle. Court found drugs were not in plain view, and warrantless seach of vehicle violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, court further found drugs inevitably would have been discovered during inventory search of vehicle and need not be suppressed. | 09/23/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Wensel v. Astrue -- Order on motion of plaintiff's counsel for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 USC 406(b). Court found fee equal to 25% of past-due benefits was excessive under the Gisbrecht factors, and reduced the fee award to approximately 18.6% of the past-due benefits. | 09/11/2009 |
| - | 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’s statements were made of his own free will.) | 09/09/2009 |
| - | Cole v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Court found ALJ misinterpreted the evidence of record, and held the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that the claimant was not disabled due to muscular dystrophy and related symptoms. | 09/02/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | McFarland v. McFarland -- Order on plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of certain defendants, who asked that their dismissals be with prejudice. Court found FRCP 41(a)(1) mandated dismissal without prejudice | 08/25/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Earl Foy, Jr. (criminal prosecution on charges of sending threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(b) and (c): upward variance from 262 to 480 months of imprisonment, achieved by running the two longest statutory maximum sentences consecutively, with other sentences to run concurrently, based primarily on the § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2) factors, including the defendant’s substantial history of violence and violence toward women) | 08/24/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Ohlendorf v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. -- Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found plaintiff had stated a marginally plausible claim for relief, and further development of the record was necessary before case could be summarily dismissed. | 08/11/2009 |
| - | Carver v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court reversed Commissioner's decision, finding claimant disabled due to ongoing pain from previously broken ankle; arthritis in lower back, right ankle, and foot; and pain in right ankle, back, and hip. | 08/07/2009 |
| - | USA v. Yockey -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence located on, and stemming from, the discovery of child pornography on his cell phone at the time he was booked into the jail for driving while suspended. Court found discovery of pornographic image by inentorying officer was inadvertent; arresting officer's examination of additional photographs on the phone and questioning of defendant before giving Miranda warnings was unlawful; and detective's questioning of defendant after Miranda warnings and examination of phone's contents with defendant's consent would have occurred solely on the basis of the single photo inadvertently accessed by inventorying officer and therefore need not be suppressed. | 08/03/2009 |
| - | USA v. Mosley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress statements made when officers arrived to execute a search warrant at his house. Court found that under Eighth Circuit jurisprudence, defendant was not "in custody" at the time he made his statements, and therefore failure to give him Miranda warnings did not require suppression of his statements. | 07/27/2009 |
| - | Hart v. Baldwin -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment in prisoner 1983 case where plaintiff claimed unconstitutional retrictions on his mail. Court found plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to claims for monetary damages, and claims for equitable relief were rendered moot when prisoner was transferred to another facility. | 07/23/2009 |
| - | Matheis v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in substituting his own opinions for those of claimant's treating physician, and ALJ based his decision on speculation rather than on the evidence of record. | 07/20/2009 |
| - | Redd v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on respondent's motion for partial summary judgment. Parties conceded, and court concluded, that only one issue raised in 2254 petition had been properly exhausted and was ripe for decision. | 07/20/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Vanbogart v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing Commissioner's denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found plaintiff's migraine headaches would cause her ot miss three or more days of work per month, rendering her disabled. | 07/13/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Jacob : (criminal prosecution on charges of using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity prohibited by state law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b), and interstate transportation of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1); sentencing memorandum: the merits of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines for defendants convicted of child pornography offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, and child exploitation offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 2G2.1, including the impact of congressional mandates rather than the United States Sentencing Commission’s exercise of its institutional expertise and empirical analysis; rejection of both guidelines on categorical policy grounds and on individualized application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors) | 06/26/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Blazek v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found overwhelming evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled. | 05/27/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Kevin Kruse; Defendant who pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor sentenced to 470 months of imprisonment after applying 2G2.1 and 4B1.5. | 05/26/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Gully: (Sentencing on charges of distributing crack cocaine and distributing crack within 1,000 of a public playground or school, after a prior felony drug conviction in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 851, and 860; rejection on categorical policy grounds of 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio is Sentencing Guidelines and selection of 1:1 ratio as the reasoned alternative in this and all crack cases; methodology for imposing sentence using 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio and to enhance sentences, where appropriate, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for violence, chronic offenders, weapon possession, and other aggravating factors)
| 05/18/2009 |
| - | Heimlicher v. Steele, et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendants' post-trial motions in action for damages arising from stillbirth of plaintiffs' child. Jury awarded $1.7 million in damages against doctor and hospital for common law negligence and violation of federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 USC section 1395dd. Defendants moved, on numerous grounds, for judgment as a matter of law, for new trial, and to amend the judgment. Court found remittitur was appropriate because the amounts the jury deducted for past and future expense of raising the child were unreasonably low. Court therefore conditionally granted motions for new trial, and denied all other motions. | 05/14/2009 |
| - | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Janet Boot, Barbara Grant, Cindy Moffett, Remcey Jeunenne Peeples, Monika Starke, Latesha Thomas and Nicole Ann Cinquemano v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.; court dismissed certain claims of an intervenor and EEOC because intervenor and alleged aggrieved individuals failed to disclose sex discrimination claims in their bankruptcy proceedings | 05/13/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Janet Boot, Barbara Grant, Cindy Moffett, Remcey Jeunenne Peeples, Monika Starke, Latesha Thomas and Nicole Ann Cinquemano v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.; court held EEOC was not immune from the statute of limitations set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5, but EEOC was not barred from seeking relief on behalf of allegedly aggrieved person who timely filed her own Title VII lawsuit only to dismiss it without prejudice upon learning of EEOC's enforcement action | 05/11/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Ingram : (Sentencing for on charge of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine after a prior felony drug conviction in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 851; appropriateness sua sponte review of remand from appellate court for second chance for prosecution to prove prior conviction; sufficiency of proof of defendant’s prior conviction on second chance, including applicability of Federal Rules of Evidence to proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a prior conviction pursuant to § 851) | 05/11/2009 |
| - | Ptikin v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disabilty insurance benefits. In reversing and remanding for immediate finding of disability, court found the evidence of record uniformly indicated claimant suffered from severe mental impairment due to his schizophrenia, and he could not be expected to engage in any gainful employment. | 05/06/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Janet Boot, Barbara Grant, Cindy Moffett, Remcey Jeunenne Peeples, Monika Starke, Latesha Thomas and Nicole Ann Cinquemano v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.; order granting defendant's summary judgment motion as to plaintiff's claim of a pattern or practice of sexual harassment | 04/30/2009 |
| - | 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) | 04/21/2009 |
| - | Fink v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. Court found ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence, and substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that the claimant was not disabled. | 04/17/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Gary Visser (Sentencing on “felon in possession of a firearm” charge: applicability of the reduction to the defendant’s base offense level under the “sporting and collecting” exception in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2), where he had pawned several of the firearms in his collection)
| 04/15/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Kunert v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that although claimant's condition may have worsened to the point of disability since the expiration of her insured status, the record contained substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled due to back pain or mental health problems prior to her date last insured. | 04/08/2009 |
| - | Moriarity v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found Commissioner erred in failing to give proper consideration and weight to treating psychiatrist's opinion that claimant's bipolar disorder would prevent her from working. | 04/07/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Maxon v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to give proper weight to treating physician's opinion and in posting an inaccurate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Case remanded for award of benefits from onset date to date of plaintiff's back surgery, and for further development of the record regarding plaintiff's impairments following her surgery. | 03/27/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Volkert v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly with regard to claimant's mental impairments, and remanded case for further proceedings. | 03/23/2009 |
| - | Miller v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on review of decision denying plaintiff's application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that Miller was not disabled. | 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 |
| - | Rohde v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. In affirming the Commissioner's denial of benefits, Court found claimant's subjective complaints of disabling back and leg pain were inconsistent with the record as a whole. | 03/12/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | MITEC Partners, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association; court held defendant entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff's fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims. | 02/26/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Beiermann : (criminal prosecution on charges of possessing, receiving, transporting, and shipping child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A; sentencing memorandum: the merits of the advisory United States Sentencing Guideline for defendants convicted of child pornography offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, including the impact of congressional mandates rather than the United States Sentencing Commission’s exercise of its institutional expertise and empirical analysis; rejection of the guideline on both an individualized application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and categorically on policy grounds)
| 02/24/2009 |
| - | Jayson Johnson v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance and supplemental security insurance benefits. Court affirmed Commissioner's decision that substance abuse is a material factor in the plaintiff's disability. | 02/24/2009 |
| - | First Bank Business Capital, Inc. f/k/a FB Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Agriprocessors, Inc., Local Pride, LLC, Abraham Aaron Rubashkin and Sholom Rubashkin; court held defendants waived right to assert improper venue on grounds of mandatory forum selection clause. | 02/23/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Maurice Haltiwanger (Defendant’s objection to the prosecution’s notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), order rejecting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding defendant’s objection to § 851 notice, finding: that defendant’s Kansas tax stamp conviction can form the basis for an enhanced sentence because it meets the federal definition of a “felony drug offense” since under Kansas’s sentencing scheme, a drug stamp conviction may result in a maximum sentence of imprisonment for more than one year.) | 02/23/2009 |
| - | Accurate Controls, Inc. v. Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors - Order on plaintiff's motion for protective order regarding defendants' request to discover plaintiff's internal bid worksheet and plaintiff's purchase orders for materials used in construction of county jail. Court held plaintiff is entitled to recover more than its actual cost of labor and materials under Iowa Code chapter 573, but not necessarily the full amount of its contract. Plaintiff must show its contract price was "just" and "established by law." Motion granted as to internal bid worksheets, and denied as to pruchase orders for materials, subject to concurrent protective order. | 02/23/2009 |
| - | Greenhaw v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa -- Motion to Strike (Issue: strike expert witness testimony) | 02/17/2009 |
| - | Mattress Warehousing, Inc. and William T. Furry v. Power Marketing Direct, Inc. d/b/a PMD Furniture Direct, GJC Enterprises, Inc. and Gregory J. Carrera; court held defendants failed to prove fraudulent joinder and remanded case to state court based upon lack of diversity jurisdiction | 02/16/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Heather Fiorella a/k/a Heather Gonsorcik; Defendant who pled guilty to three counts of possession of child pornography sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment after district court found she obstructed justice and upheld USSG 2G2.1 against Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007) challenge. | 02/11/2009 |
| - | USA v. Haltiwanger -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's objection to Government's 851 notice. Interpreting Kansas sentencing guideline scheme applicable to drug tax stamp violation, court found maximum term to which defendant could have been sentenced was seven months, rather than the thirteen months applicable to defendants in higher criminal history categories, and therefore defendant's conviction under the Kansas drug tax stamp law did not qualify as a prior felony confiction for purposes of a federal sentence enhancement. | 02/11/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Dunaway v. McCollister & Co. -- Order on defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert for late disclosure. Court found plaintiff failed to show late disclosures were either substantially justified or harmless, and awarded sanctions in the form of payment of deposition costs. | 02/04/2009 |
| - | USA v. Gregg -- Report and Recommendation on petition to revoke the defendant's term of supervised release. | 02/04/2009 |
| - | Winters v. Maples -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Court recommended denial of writ on all grounds, including petitioner's argument that sentence enhancement on the basis of habitual offender status violated the double jeopardy clause. | 02/02/2009 |
| - | U.S. v. Montreail Dungy ( Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting as grounds the ineffective assistance of trial, sentencing and appellate counsel for the following reasons: (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call certain witnesses; (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present an alibi defense; (3) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the introduction of certain bad acts which occurred when defendant was a juvenile; (4) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a buyer-seller jury instruction; (5) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the lack of proof that the drug involved in the conspiracy was crack cocaine; (6) that his sentencing counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the sentencing stipulation; (7) that his sentencing counsel failed to object to his two prior felony drug convictions being used to determine his criminal history as well as for a § 851 enhancement; (8) that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses. Defendant also asserted that prosecution witness had recanted his testimony. Motion denied in its entirety: first, claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to interview and call as witnesses individuals who could have testified at trial was denied because issue was raised on direct appeal and a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by person in federal custody may not be used to relitigate an issue that was raised on appeal; second, defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to present an alibi defense at trial because defendant charged with drug conspiracy was not entitled to alibi instruction where conspiracy allegedly lasted for a period of years and defendant’s presence at scene of drug transaction was not a required element of the conspiracy; third, his trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the admission of testimony concerning actions done when defendant was a juvenile because evidence of defendant’s juvenile actions, which took place during the pendency of the conspiracy, was relevant and admissible as part of the res gestae of the charged offense; fourth, defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a buyer-seller instruction because he, in fact, did so, and such an instruction was given in this case; fifth, given the weight of all the evidence in the case, defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the lack of proof that the drug that was the object of the conspiracy was crack cocaine; sixth, considering that defendant faced a mandatory life sentence, defense counsel’s advice to defendant that he accept the sentencing stipulation was a reasonable strategic choice made after sufficient investigation of the law and relevant facts and one which clearly fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; seventh, defendant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to lodge an objection to the court’s use of his two prior drug convictions to determine his criminal history as well as for a § 851 enhancement where evidence exists in the record of a number of overt acts committed by defendant in furtherance of the charged conspiracy which occurred after the date of his convictions; finally, defendant had not established that a portion of witnesses’s testimony was false.) | 02/02/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Smith v. Ault -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Petitioner claimed double jeopardy when he was prosecuted for both contempt and escape after he failed to surrender himself to custody as ordered. Court found the two crimes have different elements, and double jeopardy was not implicated by dual prosecution. | 01/29/2009 |
| - | Weatherspoon v. Ault -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Court found all of petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted, and recommended denial of writ | 01/27/2009 |
| - | Alan E. Thompson, Darrell G. Hinrichsen, Keith P. Fogel, Wallace E. Alm and Donald D. Boe v. United Transportation Union; court ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant's ordinary costs in the amount of $1,166.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1920. | 01/26/2009 |
| - | EEOC v. CRST -- Motion to Compel (Issues: Attorney-client privilege, Work-product, 30(b)(6) depos) | 01/20/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | US v. Daniel Lee Wilson -- R&R; Motion to Suppress-Issues: Fourth Amendment: Entry onto Curtilage, Entry into Porch | 01/14/2009 |
| - | Roque v. Ault -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Petitioner claimed he was entitled to an interpreter or other staff assistance in defending two disciplinary actions. Court found petitioner failed to meet his burden to show state court erred in denying his claims | 01/14/2009 |
| - | Chisley v. Lund -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Court found three of petitioner's claims in this 2254 action were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, and ineffective assistance of PCR counsel, though clear, could not excuse procedural default. | 01/09/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Pearson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. -- R&R; ERISA, Accidental Death Benefits | 01/06/2009 |
| - | Lindstrom v. Astrue (Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); the court awarded EAJA fees directly to the prevailing party’s attorney pursuant to the recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Ratliff v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that “EAJA attorneys’ fees are awarded to prevailing parties’ attorneys.”)) | 01/05/2009 |
| - | 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 |
| - | US v. Lesean D. Hardy -- R&R; Motion to Suppress-Issues: Legality of Pat-Down Search, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Analysis | 01/05/2009 |
| - | US v. Edward Frank Brewer & Rosina Orlantha Rhodes -- R&R; Motions to Suppress-Issues: Fourth Amendment: Traffic Stop; Fifth Amendment: Voluntary Statements | 01/05/2009 |
| - | Leventhal v. Schaffer -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in this action for damages pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Court found officer was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims of false arrest and use of excessive force, and plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies on state law claims. | 12/31/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Miell (criminal prosecution on charges of mail fraud, arising from a fraudulent scheme to obtain insurance proceeds for hail-damage roofs and a fraudulent scheme to retain renters’ damage deposits, perjury, and failure to file tax returns: defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the following evidence: (1) evidence from the prosecution’s “expert,” a “certified fraud examiner,” concerning damage deposits received and retained by the defendant; (2) evidence relating to the so-called “Beckfield litigation,” which included one of the present defendant’s business entities, Advanced Equities, as a defendant; (3) evidence described as “miscellaneous tenant complaints”; (4) evidence from various small claims court judges; (5) depictions of the defendant as a “slum lord”; (6) evidence of the so-called “Bat Cave,” in which the defendant purportedly retained property belonging to tenants who had been evicted or moved out; (7) photographs of the defendant’s personal residence; (8) evidence of health insurance and mileage reimbursements that the defendant pays to some of his employees; and (9) evidence of alleged destruction of documents by the defendant’s “handyman”) | 12/26/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Kenneth Siepker : (federal prisoner’s pro se motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255: ruling without evidentiary hearing: alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on the following grounds: failure to move for severance of drug and gun counts, failure to request an “Old Chief instruction,” failure to file a motion in limine to preclude non-coconspirator hearsay evidence, failure to object to count charging commission of offense while on pre-trial release as an illegal Bill of Attainder, failure to request a buyer-seller instruction, failure to object to hearsay, stipulation that firearms were possessed “in or affecting commerce,” failure to object to a constructive amendment of the indictment on the gun charges, and failure to assert an “Apprendi claim” based on court determination of drug quantity; constitutional claims based on admission of hearsay evidence in violation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, and insufficient evidence on the drug conspiracy count of an illegal agreement; denial of a certificate of appealability) | 12/18/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Franks v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in discounting claimant's subjective complaints, where claimant failed to seek medical treatment for many years due to doctors' advice that her condition, an ateriovenous malformation, was untreatable. | 12/15/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Stillmunkes v. Givaudan Flavors Corp, et al (Motion for leave to amend; [Rule 15(a) and Rule 16(a) discussed.) | 12/10/2008 |
| - | 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. | 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 |
| - | Banta v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff had shown sufficient facts to defeat summary judgment on hostile work environment claim, but not on retaliatory discharge claim. | 12/01/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Miell : (criminal prosecution on charges of mail fraud, arising from a fraudulent scheme to obtain insurance proceeds for hail-damage roofs and a fraudulent scheme to retain renters’ damage deposits, perjury, and failure to file tax returns: prosecution’s motion in limine to exclude any reference to or introduction of evidence by the defendant that he repaired the hail-damaged roofs at a point in time after he obtained insurance proceeds based on fraudulent claims that he had already repaired the roofs, and any reference to or introduction of evidence by the defendant that he had or believed that he had only one year to repair the roofs) | 11/25/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Gray v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ and Appeals Council erred in giving insufficient weight to opinions of treating physician and nurse practitioner regarding claimant's limitations. | 11/20/2008 |
| - | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Janet Boot, Barbara Grant, Cindy Moffett, Remcey Jeunenne Peeples, Monika Starke, Latesha Thomas and Nicole Ann Cinquemano v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.; court established pretrial and trial framework for EEOC's "pattern or practice" claim | 11/19/2008 |
| - | Lwis v. Astrue - Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. Court found claimant failed to provide adequate evidence that she was disabled prior to her date last insured of December 31, 1997. | 11/07/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Malmquist v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in finding substance abuse was a material factor contributing to claimant's disability, but further found the record evidence was insufficient with regard to claimant's mental abilities to support the Commissioner's decision. | 11/06/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Kelly Jacob (Cases of three defendants charged with child pornography and sexual offenses involving minors; sentencing; prosecution’s request for access to court’s expert, appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(c), beyond the report of the expert’s psychosexual analysis of each defendant) | 10/31/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Beiermann (Cases of three defendants charged with child pornography and sexual offenses involving minors; sentencing; prosecution’s request for access to court’s expert, appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(c), beyond the report of the expert’s psychosexual analysis of each defendant) | 10/31/2008 |
| - | USA v. Maul -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found officer had probable cause to conduct traffic stop, reasonable suspicion to detain vehicle's occupants for further investigation after traffic stop was concluded, and authority to remove occupants from vehicle for purposes of exterior K-9 sniff of the vehicle. | 10/30/2008 |
| - | Russell A. Folkers v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, Darrel Johnson, & Maria Tiller -- Summary Judgment Motion. Issues: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights: Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process and substantial due process) | 10/27/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. James Callanan (sentencing of criminal defendant: determination of appropriate remedy for another incident of prosecutorial misconduct involving breach of a plea agreement, including consideration of sanctions against prosecutor personally) | 10/24/2008 |
| - | USA v. Thies -- Report and Recommendation, recommending defendant's motion to suppress evidence be denied. Defendant's girlfriend, with whom he lived, called police to report that defendant was drunk and acting violently, and she was frightened because he had a gun in the house. Officer went to the house to investigate, with intent to seize the firearm for the parties' and the public's safety. He encountered defendant and some friends in the front yard of the residence. He asked defendant a few questions before arresting defendant on an outstanding warrant. He then entered the house, over defendant's objections, to secure the firearm, and while inside, noticed some live ammunition. After learning defendant had a prior felony conviction, officer secured a search warrant for the house and seized the ammunition and other evidence. Court found defendant's responses to initial questions were noncustodial and need not be suppressed; officer's initial entry into the house to retrieve the gun was lawful; and even if initial entry into the house was not lawful, gun and ammunition inevitably would have been discovered. | 10/23/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Matthew Kashas (Cases of three defendants charged with child pornography and sexual offenses involving minors; sentencing; prosecution’s request for access to court’s expert, appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(c), beyond the report of the expert’s psychosexual analysis of each defendant) | 10/21/2008 |
| - | USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss indictment. Court found defendant who receives firearm in trade for drugs does not possess the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 USC 924(c), but recommended the motion be denied as premature. | 10/21/2008 |
| - | Combs v. Astrue - Order denying motion for supplemental attorney's fees for services performed at the administrative level. Court held administrative fees are determinable only by the agency, not by the courts. | 10/16/2008 |
| - | Joran v. Astrue - Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to give proper weight to treating physician's opinions, and vocational expert's response to hypothetical question that did not include limitations suggested by treating physician could not support denial of benefits. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | 10/15/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson v. Michelle Mais; district court denies defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law but grants defendant's motion for partial new trial on damages, on plaintiffs' claims that defendant illegally strip and visual body cavity (VBC) searched their persons. With respect to Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, district court held that, although Linn County's policy of blanket strip searches was clearly unconstitutional, there was sufficient evidence to support an award of more than nominal damages. With respect to defendant's motion for new trial, district court held that jury's award of damages shocked the conscience and, if allowed to stand, would result in a miscarriage of justice. | 10/02/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Charles Schrage criminal defendant’s motion in limine before trial on “felon in possession of a firearm” charge: evidence of telephone calls and correspondence from the defendant while incarcerated; evidence of the defendant’s and a witness’s prior convictions) | 10/02/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | EEOC (Plaintiff) & Boot, Grant, Koffett, Peeples, Starke, & Thomas (Plaintiffs/Interveners) v CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (Defendant) -- Motion to Intervene (Issues: Timeliness and futility of the proposed Complaint included with the motion) | 09/26/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Sean Merrill; court held that child pornographer was not subject to sentencing enhancement for distribution, where defendant did not disseminate child pornography to others but instead only moved it from one electronic device to another | 09/26/2008 |
| - | Thompson, Hinrichsen, Fogel, Alm, & Boe v. United Transportation Union--Motion to Amend Complaint. Issues: Tmeliness and Futility (Preemption and Duty of Fair Representation) | 09/25/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. David Dicus: (sentencing of criminal defendant: sentence reduction as a sanction for prosecution’s serious misconduct consisting of breach of a plea agreement) | 09/24/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Mack Davis; court held defendant was career offender, based in part upon prior conviction for Indecent Contact With a Child, in violation of Iowa Code Section 709.12(4) (1993) | 09/17/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Brett & Cory Kamerud: (Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; petitioners claim that guilty verdict for conspiracy to (1) “distribute methamphetamine,” (2) “possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine,” and (3) “possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine to one or more persons under twenty-one years of age should be set aside; the court decided whether the petitioners were provided with ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by analyzing an extensive list of possible grounds for petitioners’ claim.) | 09/16/2008 |
| - | Kyle Chyma v. Tama County School Board, Larry Molachek, Steve Burr, and Ernie Tomlinson (motion for summary judgment--Issues: (1) Due Process Violated, (2) First Amendment Rights, (3) Section 1983 Claim Based on FERPA, (4) Compliance of Iowa Code Section 282.4) | 09/08/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was convicted by a jury of a firearms violation and appealed. Appellate court reversed due to erroneous jury instruction. On remand, government dismissed, and then re-indicted defendant one day later. Defendant argued reprosecution violated his fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy. Court recommended motion be denied based on Supreme Court precedent holding Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reprosecution of a defendant whose conviction is overturned on appeal due to a trial error, rather than for insufficiency of evidence. | 09/02/2008 |
| - | John Cyril Lapid Buenaventura v. Jerry Burt, Warden--Report and Recommendation (Right to consular notification, Sufficiency of the evidence, Ineffective assistance of counsel (exclusion of harassment and vandalism evidence and failure to investigate) | 08/29/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Glawatz v. Astrue -- Order granting plaintiff's motion to remand for consideration of further evidence pursuant to sentence six of 42 USC 405(g). | 08/21/2008 |
| - | United States v. Mishan Bradford (R&R--Motion to Suppress (Fourth Amendment; Warrantless Search) | 08/12/2008 |
| - | USA v. Godfrey -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress statements defendant made to agents who questioned him at his home. Court found defenadnt's sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached where defendant had not been charged or arrested and was not in custody at time of interview. Defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings prior to the non-custodial interview, and defendant's statements were not coerced. | 08/11/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Jensen v. Astrue - Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Taking into account medical records that were presented to Appeals Council, but were not before the ALJ at the time of his decision, court found claimant disabled due to mental impairments, but further found claimant failed to show his disability began prior to expiration of his insured status for Title II purposes. | 07/30/2008 |
| - | USA v. Stangeland -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice for speedy trial violation. Court reviewed dismissal of prior case pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 USC 3162, and concluded dismissal without prejudice was proper. Defendant failed to show constitutional violation under Barker v. Wingo factors. | 07/29/2008 |
| - | USA v. Puok -- Order on Government's motion to compel defense to produce summaries of expert testimony. Court overruled defendant's interpretation of standard Stipulated Discovery Order, holding production of expert witness summaries is required by the stipulation without any notice or request from either party. | 07/25/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Yuot & Puok (defendants’ motions in limine in criminal trial: opinions about a defendant’s guilt, or, more specifically, that he “is” a drug dealer, or that he was part of a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, or that he is a “known” drug dealer; opinions that a sock located in a defendant’s pocket at the time of a traffic stop was the match for a sock containing crack cocaine located in the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger; use of nicknames or aliases; evidence of a defendant’s employment history or lack thereof; evidence of and references to a defendant’s various prior arrests, charges, or convictions) | 07/23/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Orlando Birbragher, Marshall Neil Kanner, Douglas Willis Bouchey, Armando Angulo and Peter Colon Lopez; order on motion to dismiss | 07/22/2008 |
| - | Peterson v. Prosser -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss filed by Iowa Attorney General regarding plaintiff's constitutional challenges to five Iowa statutes. Court found plaintiff's challenges to three of the statutes should be dismissed pursuant to either the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Haris, or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, whichever is applicable. Court found plaintiff lacked standing to challenge constitutionally of the two other Iowa statutes. | 07/22/2008 |
| - | USA v. Kenison -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had failed to make a preliminary showing that information was omitted from search warrant application recklessly, deliberately, or intentionally, and therefore defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing. | 07/21/2008 |
| - | USA v. Ortega-Morgado --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation. Parties agreed the indictment should be dismissed, but disagreed on whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. After weighing factors in 18 USC 3162(a)(1), court recommended dismissal be with prejudice. | 07/18/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Jose Islas-Bravo (defendant’s motion in criminal trial to admit “reverse 404(b)” evidence of separately tried co-defendant’s prior conviction on state drug offense to support third-party guilt defense) | 07/16/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Erickson v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to give proper weight to opinions of treating physician, and in failing to appreciate the debilitating effects of fibromyalgia. | 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 |
| - | Candy Bailey v. Komatsu Forklift U.S.A., Inc. -- Deadline for Completion of Discovery | 07/07/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Roger Waldner; court sentenced defendant to 120 months imprisonment on his pleas of guilty to two counts of bankruptcy fraud, arising out of In Re H & W Motor Express Co, No. 02-2017 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Jun. 12, 2002 | 07/07/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | American Family Ins. v. Robert Miell -- Post-Trial Motions: new trial (testimony & other "bad acts," punitive damage instruction); judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative to amend judgment (judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Iowa Code Sec. 515.101, punitive damages award "unconstitutionally excessive?); attorney fees; bill of costs) | 07/01/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Robert Rakes and Robert Hollander, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Life Investors Insurance Company of America; order granting motion for summary judgment for defendant insurance company in a class action lawsuit due to disclosures by defendant insurance company negating the alleged fraudulent omissions and representations forming the basis of the plaintiffs' complaint | 06/20/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Stangeland -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was indicted, but no trial was scheduled. Court dismissed indictment sua sponte for speedy trial violation, and Government then obtained a new indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that because the first indictment was dismissed other than on his own motion, the speedy trial clock continued to run. Court found Defendant was beneficiary of the sua sponte dismissal, and the speedy trial clock began to run anew with the second indictment. | 06/11/2008 |
| - | USA v. McManaman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found a Sixth Amendment violation where officers asked defendant a question after he had been indicted and taken into custody but before he had been advised of his rights, and recommended suppression of defendant's response to the question. However, court found firearm located as a result of that response inevitably would have been discovered, and therefore it need not be suppressed, nor did the constitutional violation require suppression of defendant's post-Miranda statements made several hours after his arrest. | 06/09/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Industrial Risk Insurers v. D.C. Taylor Company -- Motion to Compel (Issues: timeliness of the motion; conference between the attorneys; waiver of objections; merits of objections) | 05/28/2008 |
| - | Handke ex rel. Estate of Davis v. Astrue - Order on motion for attorney's fees and costs under Equal Access to Justice Act and 42 USC 406(b) | 05/16/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Douglas Dean Johnson (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress and granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to suppress, finding: that a search warrant application for defendant’s Primghar residence failed to support the state magistrate’s probable cause determination and that the search warrant application was so facially deficient that the state magistrate’s issuance of a search warrant constituted “a rubber stamp for the police”, so that the exclusionary rule should be applied and the evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant for the Primghar residence should be excluded; that with respect to a search warrant for defendant’s Clay County property, the totality of the information presented to the state magistrate supported the state magistrate’s probable cause determination and that the information contained in the search warrant application was not stale; and, that it was not objectively unreasonable for the law enforcement officers here to proceed to execute the search warrant for the Clay County property in these circumstances.) | 05/14/2008 |
| - | Nissen v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ correctly weighed the medical evidence in assessing claimant's residual functional capacity and finding claiant was not disabled. | 05/09/2008 |
| - | US v. Fundermann -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during and as a result of traffic stop. Court found traffic stop was valid; search of vehicle was supported by probable cause; and subsequent search warrant issued on basis of evidence found during traffic stop also was supported by probable cause. | 05/08/2008 |
| - | USA v. Daniel Binion--R&R (motions to suppress evidence-4th Amendment [probable cause for traffic stop and pat-down search] & 5th Amendment [voluntary statement made after refusal to waive Miranda rights]) | 05/06/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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. Lamont William Papakee; court's sentencing memorandum; court held that sexual abuse in Indian Country is a crime of violence for purposes of career offender finding and held alternative variance permissible after Gall v. United States | 04/24/2008 |
| - | Smith v. Rogerson -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. In recommending the petition be denied, court found petitioner failed to show error in plea colloquy or that his attorneys were ineffective. | 04/23/2008 |
| - | Lee Borntrager, et al v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund--Motions for Summary Judgment (trust agreement in violation of fed. law?; arbitrary & capricious actions?; bad faith or improper motive?) | 04/22/2008 |
| - | Rayburn v. Wady Industries, Inc.--Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (wrongful discharge in violation of public policy) | 04/10/2008 |
| - | USA v. Thomas Ray Reinhart (R&R on motion to suppress--entry into 3rd-party residence on arrest warrant, protective sweep, Franks hearing, Leon good-faith exception) | 04/08/2008 |
| - | Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. In recommending the petition be granted, the Court found no probable cause existed for Jones's arrest on drug paraphernalia charge in violation of city ordinance based solely on the presence of a small scale in the vehicle in which Jones was a passenger. | 04/04/2008 |
| - | Lewis v. J&M P'ship, F&F Inv, Air Mak & E. James Freyberger-Ruling on Motion to Extend Time (failure to obtain extension of time the result of excusable neglect, showing of good cause to extend pleadings deadline) | 04/04/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | US v. Jon Young (R&R on Motion to Suppress--request for counsel) | 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 |
| - | Russell v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. - Order denying defendant's Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony regarding design defect and failure to warn in case involving failure of spinal rods constructed of Commercially Pure Titanium. | 04/02/2008 |
| - | USA v. Douglas Johnson --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence seized from execution of two separate search warrants. Court found the first warrant application to be deficient, and so much so that the court held the Leon exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence seized in execution of the warrant. Court found the second warrant contained sufficient information to support the magistrate's probable cause determination, and further found that in any event, the officers' reliance on the warrant was reasoanble and in good faith. | 04/01/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Ronald Coleman; sentencing memorandum holding that defendant's prior Iowa conviction for drug tax stamp violation was a prior felony drug conviction for purposes of 21 U.S.C. §§841 & 851 | 04/01/2008 |
| - | Sorenson v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. In recommending remand for immediate payment of benefits, court found ALJ erred in weighing the medical evidence, assessing claimant's residual functional capacity, evaluating claimant's crediblity, and posing an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert. | 03/17/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Vo -- Order denying motion to sever. Defendant charged with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and money laundering moved for severance from co-defendants charged with continuing criminal enterprise and other crimes. Court found joinder was proper, and defendant failed to show he would suffer serious prejudice from joinder of his case for trial with his co-defendants. | 03/10/2008 |
| - | US v. John Bolden, Zechariah Benjamin, Nell Brocks, Clarence Ross, III, & Wilson Cleaves (Motion to Sever--Bruton issue) | 03/07/2008 |
| - | Dible v. Scholl -- Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 USC 1983, for damages resulting from loss of good time credit. Court held disciplinary notice issued to plaintiff was constitutionally deficient, and defendants were not protected by qualified immunity. However, in light of 12-15-07 opinion in Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2007). court reluctantly concluded plaintiff's action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. | 03/07/2008 |
| - | International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America and United Auto Workers Local 13 v. Rousselot, Inc. (motions for summary judgment--compel arbitration and attorney fees) | 02/29/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Michael Ingram (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 when he was asked one question by a law enforcement officer which was designed to protect the officer’s safety during a traffic stop, as such, defendant was not in custody at the time and his response to the officer’s question should not be suppressed; that any statements made by defendant between the time of his arrest and the time he was advised of his rights should be suppressed; and, that, defendant’s challenge to the search warrant should be denied because even without defendant’s pre-arrest statement and the evidence seized from his person, the warrant affidavit contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable magistrate to find probable cause to issue a warrant to search the apartment.) | 02/25/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Risdal v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found claimant was not eligible for SSI benefits because he was a resident of a public institution, and he was not eligible for DI benefits because he lacked the requisite number of quarters of eligibility. | 02/20/2008 |
| - | Wensel v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for Title II disability benefits. Court found ALJ erred in weighing the opinion of claimant's treating physician regarding claimant's functional limitations, and in finding claimant's subjective complaints of disabling pain not to be credible. | 02/20/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Tony Eugene Goodson (R&R on motion to withdraw guilty plea) | 02/19/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Chris Pipkin; ordering defendant to make restitution despite an order of discharge over the restitution in bankruptcy court | 02/19/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Charles Thomas; order regarding constitutionality of the sex offender registration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act | 02/13/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. Charles Warthan; sentencing memorandum opinion; court calculated defendant's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Minor role adjustment did not apply, upward departure for number of victims applied, downward departure for discharged term of imprisonment did not apply. | 02/07/2008 |
| - | McGowan v. Soy Basics (order for judgment--attorney fees) | 02/06/2008 |
| - | Flynn v. Farmer Masonry, Inc. and Dwayne Farmer, Individually (motion to quash lien on real estate; homestead exemption, Iowa law) | 02/06/2008 |
| - | USA v. Edmond Louis Cote (R&R on motion to suppress evidence (probable cause determination supported by affidavit and sworn oral testimony, Leon good-faith exception) | 02/06/2008 |
| - | U.S. v. David Matthew Howell (Motion to dismiss, order accepting in part and rejecting in part 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), court concluded that Congress’s delegation of authority to the United States Attorney General in 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) was not a violation of the nondelegation doctrine, finding that SORNA’s registration requirements and criminal provisions constitute permissible exercises of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause;
determining that application of SORNA’s penalty provision to him did not violate due process, that application of SORNA to him constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, finding that SORNA was effective as to all convicted sex offenders as of the date of its enactment, but that application of SORNA to defendant’s conduct that pre-dated the interim rule’s enactment would constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law.) | 02/01/2008 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Mack Arthur Davis, Jr. (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress statements--voluntary waiver of Miranda rights and voluntary statement to police) | 01/16/2008 |
| - | USA v. John Anthony Echols, Jr. (motion to set aside section 851 notice) | 01/15/2008 |
| - | Industrial Risk Insurers et al v. DC Taylor Co. (contested motion for leave to amend) | 01/04/2008 |
| - | USA vs. Cashier’s Check in the Amount of Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars and Twelve Cents $519,486.12) and Cashier’s Check in the Amount of Twenty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents
($21,813.88) (motion to strike answer) | 12/24/2007 |
| - | James G. Thomas, Kerry Thomas, Gregory Norlin, Nancy Norlin and Sierra Club vs. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, and John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region VII OF The United States Environmental Protection Agency (Report and Recommendation re whether EPA properly approved Iowa's Section 303(d) list) | 12/17/2007 |
| - | Roger Walters vs. Purdential Insurance Company of America (Report and Recommendation--ERISA--long-term disability benefits) | 11/30/2007 |
| - | Cedar Rapids Television Company d/b/a KCRG-TV9 v. MCC Iowa LLC and MCC Illinois LLC; order re bench trial | 11/30/2007 |
| - | USA v. Ingram -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found officer's pre-Miranda question at scene of traffic stop regarding whether defendant had anything in his possession that would get him into trouble was not a custodial inquiry and did not violate defendant's Miranda rights. Court further found search warrant was supported by probable cause. | 11/28/2007 |
| - | Jason Paul Annis vs. City of Welwein; Chief Jeremy Logan; David Bloem; and Ronald Voshell, Individually and in their official capacities (application to depose federal inmate) | 11/26/2007 |
| - | Wurth v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Court recommended motion be granted, finding case was not timely filed within sixty days after notice of decision was mailed to plaintiff's correct address, despite the fact that the notice was not received by his attorney until a month later due to an incorrect address for the attorney. | 11/19/2007 |
| - | Anderson v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in finding claimant could return to her past relevant work as a security guard, and therefore in stopping his evaluation at step four of the sequential evaluation process. Court further found remand was unwarranted where substantial evidence of record supported a finding that claimant was disabled. | 11/19/2007 |
| - | Murray v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Issue concerned application of 20 CRF 404.1574a(a) & (c). Count fond claimant's earnings had not changed significantly as found by the ALJ, and recommended the decision be reversed. | 11/19/2007 |
| - | Robert Rakes,Robert Hollander, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Life Investors Insurance Company of America (motion; amended answer) | 11/09/2007 |
| - | USA v. Webb - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging him with possession of a firearm after previously being convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Court found question was for the jury as to whether defendant's conduct leading to the state conviction involved the requisite "physical force" to constitute a predicate offense for a conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(9). | 11/09/2007 |
| - | Richard L. McGowan, LTD., Inc., vs. Soy Basics, L.L.C. (bench trial, breach of contract) | 11/08/2007 |
| - | USA v. Howell -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging violations of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 USC 16901 et seq. and 18 USC 2250. Held: (1) SORNA was not applicable to sex offender with pre-SORNA convition until issuance of Attorney General's interim rule on 2/28/07; (2) application of SORNA to conduct predating the interim rule would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution; (3) SORNA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine or the Commerce Clause; (4) application of SORNA to defendant would not violate due process; and (5) proper venue for SORNA violation is fact-based and represents jury question for trial. | 11/08/2007 |
| - | Randal E. McCullough v. AEGON USA, Inc., Board of Directors Patrick S. Baird, James A. Beardsworth, Kirk W. Buese, Tom A. Schlossberg, Arthur C. Schneider, Mary Taiber, James R. Trefz, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Investment Management LLC, Diversified Investment Advisors, Inc. and Does 1-20; order granting defendants' motion for partial summary judgment | 10/30/2007 |
| - | Walter Junior Hoskins, III vs. Cornell Smith, Warden of Fort Dodge Correctional Facility of Iowa's Department of Corrections (Report and Recommendation on motion for evidentiary hearing & expand record, illegal search, identity of confidential informant) | 10/30/2007 |
| - | 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. Hugo Salazar-Montrero (criminal defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to determine elements of “aggravated identity theft” offense defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1028A: court’s authority to determine pretrial the elements of an offense; determination of elements) | 10/25/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Russell A. Folkers vs. City of Waterloo, Iowa, Darrel Johnson, in his individual capacity and as Animal Control Officer for City of Waterloo, Iowa, and Maria Tiller, in her individual capacity and as Animal Control Officer for the City of Waterloo, Iowa (Report and Recommendation re preliminary injunction--dangerous dog) | 10/12/2007 |
| - | Christine Pospisil vs. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., Randy Swaim, and Jon Workman (sex discrimination, retaliation) | 10/05/2007 |
| - | Frazier ex rel. McDonald v. Astrue -- Order reversing Commissioner's decision denying application for supplemental security income benefits on behalf of minor child. Court found record evidence proved minor child had at least marked limitation in four functional areas, and his impairments were equal or functionally equivalent to a listed impairment. | 09/28/2007 |
| - | McKee v. Astrue -- Order reversing Commissioner's decision denying claimant's application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in assessing claimant's residual functional capacity and in giving greater weight to non-examining physician's opinion than he gave to opinions of two examining physicians and one treating physician. Court amended claimant's disaiblity onset date, holding claimant could not be found disabled for period when she was receiving unemployment compensation. | 09/27/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Mark Donisi : (criminal defendant’s motion in limine: prior drug use and evidence from his proffer interview) | 09/25/2007 |
| - | Earl Harrison and Mariam P. Harrison vs. Rockwell Collins, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Comany, and Rockwell Collins Employee Health Plan Number 700 (denial of benefits for hospital bills) | 09/25/2007 |
| - | Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio, and Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Defendant/Counterclaimant (motion to compel--completely answer interrogatory) | 09/24/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Combs v. Astrue -- In reversing Commissioner's denial of Title II disability insurance benefits, court found ALJ erred in rejecting opinions of claimant's treating physicians, presenting inaccurate hypothetical questions to vocational expert, assessing claimant's residual functional capacity, failing to develop the record fully and fairly, and failing to consider dosage, side effects, and effectiveness of claimant's medications. | 09/20/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA vs. John Shuler and Heather Fiorella (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress, search of residence) | 09/18/2007 |
| - | The Arthur L. Christofferen Irrevocable Trust v. Yellow Book USA, Inc.; granting employer's motion for summary judgment on former CEO's unpaid wages claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law and his breach of contract claim under Iowa law where the former CEO died in 2005, and then his Trust sought $16,667.00 monthly payments under a Release and a Consulting Agreement that the former CEO and employer had entered into while the former CEO was still an employee. | 09/06/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Combs v. Astrue -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in giving improper weight to opinion of records-review physician, which differed from opinions of examining and treating physicians; in relying on hypothetical question that failed to include all of claimant's impairments as supported by the record evidence; and in assessing claimant's credibility. | 09/04/2007 |
| - | Awe v. I&M Rail Link -- Order deying plaintiffs' motion to vacate arbitrator's decision on unconscionability, and granting defendant's motion to dismiss the case. Court found retention and severance agreement between the parties was not a "contract of employment of . . . railroad employees" which would have excluded the contract from arbitration under section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. | 09/04/2007 |
| - | Pincheck, L.C. vs. Tempo Payments, Inc. (motion to strike affirmative defenses) | 08/30/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Carolyn Brown, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgment where the parties entered into a release that was governed by Illinois law; determining that defendant was released from all liabilities for the period up to December 31, 2002. | 08/29/2007 |
| - | USA v. Plum -- Order granting motion for involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to render defendant competent for trial. Court found the Government had proved all four of the Sell factors. | 08/29/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Hernandez (federal prisoner’s pro se motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255: ruling after evidentiary hearing: alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file notice of appeal after prisoner’s request that counsel do so) | 08/29/2007 |
| - | USA v. McMullin -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, and motion to dismiss one count of indictment for violating defendant's right against double jeopardy. Court found defendant failed to show delay in filing indictment resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to presentation of his defense, or that government intentionally delayed the indictment to gain tactical advantage or to harass him. On second motion, court held 21 USC 841(c)(2) is a lesser included offense of 21 USC 841(c)(1), so that although trying defendant on both charges does not violate double jeopardy, defendant could not be convicted and punished for both offenses. | 08/28/2007 |
| - | USA v. McMullin - Order denying defendant's motion for severance. Court found defendant filed to show he would suffer "real prejudice" from joint trial. | 08/28/2007 |
| - | David Goings, Lewine Boucher-Goings, and Juanita Goings vs. Chickasaw County; Martin Larsen, Individually and in his official capacity; Todd Miller, Individually and in his official capacity; and City of Nashua (motion to strike designation of experts) | 08/27/2007 |
| - | Tomlinson v. Burt -- Report and Recommendation on respondent's motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Court found all issues raised by petitioner to be unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. Court further found petitioner failed to meet his burden to identify new evidence sufficient to satisfy "actual innocence" standard. | 08/23/2007 |
| - | Klepper v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI Supplemental Security Income and Title II disability income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to develop the record adequately as to claimant's mental impairment. Court further found substantial evidence established claimant's disability. | 08/22/2007 |
| - | USA vs. Robert Earl Cole, Jr. (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress; seizure, voluntary consent urine sample) | 08/20/2007 |
| - | Heimlicher v. Steele, et al. -- Order on motions for summary judgment. Court found Iowa law is well settled that a wrongful death action cannot lie for an unborn fetus, and declined to certify question to Iowa Supreme Court. Court also held doctor's certification that patient was stabilized prior to transfer did not obviate EMTALA liability as a matter of law. Whether patient actually was stabilized prior to transfer, and whether doctor adequately deliberated and weighed medical risks and benefits of transfer, were questions for the jury. | 08/17/2007 |
| - | USA vs. Leland Richard Vinton (motion to quash subpoena for billing statement) | 08/16/2007 |
| - | USA v. Sheridan -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of motion, court found defendant's nephew, who was working as a security guard at resort, entered defendant's room as a private citizen on his own behalf; and not on behalf of, or with knowledge of and acquiescence by, any government agency. | 08/15/2007 |
| - | James R. Woelfel vs. Jerry Burt, Warden, Anamosa State Penitentiary (Report and Recommendation re 2254, exhaustion, ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy) | 08/15/2007 |
| - | Moore Development, LTD., vs. M.G. Midwest, Incl, d/b/a Movie Gallery; a/k/a Movie Gallery US, LLC; a/k/a Movie Gallery US, Inc. (breach of contract, promissory/equitable estoppel, intentional interference with prospective business relations) | 08/13/2007 |
| - | USA v. Gocha -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found probable cause existed for issuance of second and third warrants to search defendant's computers, digital cameras, personal data device, and storage media. Court further found search warrants met particularity requirement and were not overly broad. | 08/10/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA vs. Tony Eugene Goodson (conflict of interest for attorneys) | 08/07/2007 |
| - | Cletus F. Johnson, Petitioner vs Jerry Burt, Warden, Respondent (Report and Recommendation re 2254, prosecutorial misconduct, Batson claim) | 07/30/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (8th Circuit Decision) | 07/30/2007 |
| - | USA v. Jeff Cheney -- Report and Recommendation on defendnat's objections to plaintiff's notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties pursuant to 21 USC 851. | 07/27/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Linda Darcell Gilbert; sentencing memorandum opinion | 07/24/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Francisco Marcos-Quiroga (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and, as a result, money found on defendant’s person was found during a lawful search incident to his arrest and not subject to suppression.) | 07/17/2007 |
| - | Edward D. Heaton v. The Weitz Company, Inc.; denying employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50; upholding the jury's verdict that employer retaliated against employee; and upholding awards of emotional distress damages and punitive damages
| 07/13/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA vs. Brook Allen Walton (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress--Franks case) | 07/09/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Travis John O'Connor (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding motion to suppress, finding that upon viewing the affidavit in support of the search warrant application in a common sense manner, the court could not conclude that the issuing state judge did not have a substantial basis to believe that the items sought in the warrant would be found at defendant’s residence.) | 07/09/2007 |
| - | United States v. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi; motion to dismiss on due process grounds; denying defendant's motion; finding no Fifth Amendment violations due to outrageous government conduct or prosecutorial misconduct; declining defendant's invitation to use the court's supervisory power to dismiss the two-count indictment.
| 07/05/2007 |
| - | United States v. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi; motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 48(b); denying defendant's motion; finding no prejudicial preindictment delay in the government's presentation of the charges to the grand jury; and finding no unnecessary post-indictment delay due, mainly, to defendant's own requests for trial continuances.
| 07/05/2007 |
| - | United States v. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi; motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; denying defendant's motion; finding that the double jeopardy principles were not implicated because defendant was convicted in the Eastern District of Michigan on a terrorism count and a document fraud count, and then, after trial, the charges were dismissed in post-trial proceedings; alternatively holding that the offenses in the prior indictment and the instant indictment were not the "same" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
| 07/05/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Robert Earl Cole; sentencing memorandum opinion | 07/03/2007 |
| - | USA v. Gocha -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence from search of residence and shop building. Court found unrelated attachment to search warrant was included inadvertently and was not considered by magistrate in issuing warrant; defendant failed to make requisite showing to warrant a Franks hearing; and officers reasonably believed cohabitant of property had authority to consent to search of entire property. | 07/03/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States v. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi; motion to subpoena trial witnesses pursuant to Rule 104; denying defendant's motion; determining that the proposed testimony of a district court judge, a United States Attorney and a defense attorney was not admissible; and declining to issue trial subpoenas for each.
| 06/27/2007 |
| - | Francine Williams v. Hawkeye Community College; order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss and strike in employment discrimination case against state actor; holding that four-year statute of limitations applied to a portion of plaintiff's section 1983 claim | 06/27/2007 |
| - | Western Reserve Life Assurance Company of Ohio v. G. Randall Bratton, Bratton Financial Services Corporation, Bratton International, Inc. and Betty Bratton; bench trial order granting declaratory judgment in favor of insurance company; finding against independent marketing organization and its owner/agents on their counterclaims of breach of oral contract, promissory estoppel, implied-in-fact contract for services (quantum meruit) and unjust enrichment; entering judgment in favor of insurance company
| 06/26/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. James Howard Bentley; sentencing memorandum opinion | 06/25/2007 |
| - | CNH Capital America LLC. vs. Tim McCandless, d/b/a McCandless Farms (motion in limine-contract) | 06/22/2007 |
| - | USA v. Quiroga -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found officers had probable cause for defendant's warrantless arrest, and recommended evidence from search incident to arrest not be suppressed. | 06/13/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Francisco Marcos-Quiroga (Criminal defendant’s motion in limine: prior convictions, chain of custody of drug evidence, and plea agreement from conviction set aside by the court) | 06/12/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. O'Connor- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress be denied. Defendant argued search warrant for his residence was not supported by probable cause because the facts indicated his alleged activities only occurred at his workplace, not at his residence. Court found issuing judge was entitled to rely on officer's experienced opinion that defendant likely maintained pornographic images and performed illegal acts at his residence. | 06/11/2007 |
| - | Northeast Iowa Citizens for Clean Water v. AgriProcessors, Inc.; United States of America and Northeast Iowa Citizens for Clean Water v. AgriProcessors; order re application for attorneys fees and costs | 06/06/2007 |
| - | Hunter v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court recommended reversal for calculation and payment of benefits, finding ALJ erred in ruling claimant's substance abuse disorder was a contributing factor material to her disability. | 06/05/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Todd Becker (motions in limine in criminal trial: government’s motion to admit evidence of the defendant’s probation status as “intrinsic” or Rule 404(b) evidence; defendant’s motion to exclude nineteen-year-old felony drug conviction pursuant to Rule 404(b)). | 05/31/2007 |
| - | American Family Mutual Insurance Company vs Robert Miell
Robert Miell vs Brett Throlson and Brett Throlson Agency, INC. (motion for summary judgment on negligence, contribution, & indemnification) | 05/23/2007 |
| - | Blum v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to include all of claimant's limitations in RFC assessment and in hpothetical questions to vocational expert, and failed to obtain clarification from claimant's long-time treating physician regarding work-related limitations. Court recommended remand for further development of the record and consideration of new evidence. | 05/22/2007 |
| - | CNH Capital America LLC vs.
Tim McCandless, d/b/a McCandless Farms (breach of contract, aiding & abetting, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation) | 05/18/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Lee, et al. (Criminal defendants’ motions in limine: first defendant’s prior misdemeanor and felony convictions and “bad acts” as Rule 404(b) and/or “direct” evidence; second defendant’s prior criminal history, opinions that he is a drug dealer or convicted felon, lay identifications of his voice on a particular tape or monitored call, identification of him as the “Rock,” his lack of employment history; and co-conspirator hearsay allegedly exculpatory hearsay statement; third defendant’s “bad acts,” references to his presence at “crack houses,” residence at places where drugs or guns were found, discovery of baggies on his person, prior convictions, and identifications as a “drug dealer”) | 05/17/2007 |
| - | USA vs. Greg Alan Johnson (Report and Recommendation on involuntary treatment of psychotropic medication to restore competency for trial) | 05/17/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Lee Cobb (Motion to suppress, order accepting Magistrate Judges report and recommendation that defendant’s motion to suppress be granted; concluding that defendant made the requisite showing to warrant a Franks hearing, that one law enforcement officer communicated false information to another that was then included in the warrant application and that if the false information is set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause for a search of defendant’s residence.) | 05/16/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Michael Edward Kowal; order on motion to dismiss, bench trial and motion for judgment of acquittal. The court denied the motion to dismiss and motion for judgment of acquittal, and it found defendant GUILTY on Counts 5 and 7, which charged the defendant with aggravated identity theft in violation in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The court found that the term "person" in § 1028A(a)(1) includes all human beings, regardless of whether they are living at the time their identity is stolen and used. It found that the defendant's use of a decedent's surname and birth month constituted the defendant's use of the "means of identification of another person," and it rejected the defendant's claim that he changed his name through his Iowa marriage. | 05/15/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. David Evan Starr; sentencing memorandum opinion | 05/15/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Brinkmann v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in ignoring claimant's amended disability onset date, and in speculating about claimant's credibility based on past behavior before claimant got sober. Court recommended remand for further proceedings. | 05/09/2007 |
| - | USA v. Charles Scott -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had not made adequate showing for a Franks hearing, and even if affidavit in support of search warrant was deficient, officers executed the warrant in good faith and evidence should not be excluded pursuant to Leon. | 05/08/2007 |
| - | Pamela R. Reed vs. Cedar County and Cedar County Scheriff, Daniel Hannes
M. Leanne Tyler, Claimant (attorney lien) | 05/07/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States of America v. Arias-Gonzales -- Report and sua sponte recommendation that case be dismissed for speedy trial violation. | 05/02/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Lamont William Papakee and Connie Frances Blackcloud; order finding federal criminal jurisdiction over alleged sex crimes at Meskwaki Settlement | 05/02/2007 |
| - | USA vs. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi (allow deposition of witness) | 04/30/2007 |
| - | Larry Cirksena vs. Farmers Cooperative Company; Daniel Scott Forey, Individually and in his official capacity as General Manager, and James Edward Hawkins, Individually and in his official capacity as Department Manager (age discrimination) | 04/30/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Justin Cole (criminal defendant’s and prosecution’s motions in limine and Rule 104 motions to determine admissibility of evidence: defendant’s prior convictions and “bad acts” as Rule 404(b), “direct,” or res gestae evidence; allegedly exculpatory hearsay statement, considered under Rules 804(b)(3), 607, and 613(b); and the meaning of “cocaine base” as “crack cocaine” under 21 U.S.C. § 841) | 04/30/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Chapman v. Astrue - Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of SSI benefits. Court found claimant's limitations due to chronic back pain, side effects from pain medications, and need to change position frequently precluded her from gainful employment. In recommending reversal and remand for payment of benefits, court concluded ALJ erred in failing to give controlling weight to treating physicain's opinion, and in assessing claimant's residual functional capacity. | 04/12/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Glynn Jones v. Cargill, Inc.; limine order in Title VII race discrimination and retaliation case | 04/06/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | JTV Mfg, Inc. v. Mazak Optonics Corp. -- Order denying plaintiff's motion to amend petition for declaratory judgment to add party. Court found that although third party might be a proper party, he was not a necessary party, and plaintiff failed to show good cause to add third party whose presence in the case would desetroy diversity jurisdiction. | 04/03/2007 |
| - | USA v. Marsh -- Order on motion for extension of time to complete psychological evaluation. Discusses date when time commences for completion of evaluation. | 03/29/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Cobb -- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from search of his residence be granted. Court found officers recklessly included false information in warrant affidavit, and when false information was excluded, information in the affidavit would not support a finding of probable cause for a search of defendant's residence. Court further found inevitable discovery exception inapplicable on these facts. | 03/27/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Marcos-Quiroga (defendant’s objections to PSIR, motion to withdraw guilty plea, and motion for new counsel: defendant’s Sixth Amendment objection to use of a prior conviction as both a statutory sentence enhancement and a career offender guideline enhancement; reconsideration of motion to withdraw guilty plea based on bad advice of counsel concerning career offender status; motion for new counsel based on prejudicial conduct of current counsel) | 03/23/2007 |
| - | Glynn Jones v. Cargill, Inc.; limine order in Title VII race discrimination and retaliation case | 03/19/2007 |
| - | Kirk Draper and Laurie Draper v. Wellmark, Inc.; summary judgment granted; finding that Plaintiff's ERISA claim was barred by the contractual limitations provision in the insurance certificate; finding that plaintiff's common law negligent misrepresentation claim was preempted by ERISA because it had a connection with and related to an ERISA plan. | 03/15/2007 |
| - | USA v. Eddie Lee -- Order denying defendant's motion to sever his trial from the trial of his codefendants in case involving conspiracy to manufacture nd distribute crack cocaine. | 03/13/2007 |
| - | Highway Equipment Company, Inc., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant v. Cives Coporation and Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs; markman order in a patent case construing various claims of the patents-in-suit. | 03/07/2007 |
| - | Glynn Jones v. Cargill, Inc.; Title VII race discrimination and retaliation | 03/06/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States v. Honken : (appeal by defendant convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death; defendant’s request for discovery of government’s records and recollections of four unrecorded conferences to prepare the defendant’s statement pursuant to Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure concerning unrecorded portions of the record for appeal) | 02/28/2007 |
| - | USA v. Enrique Aragon-Hernandez -- Order denying defendant's motion for bill of particulars. | 02/27/2007 |
| - | McCabe v. Macaulay -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony. Court found one legal expert's testimony regarding whether probable cause existed for plaintiffs' arrests invaded province of court to make legal conclusions, and would not aid trier of fact in deciding issue of fact. Court denied motion as to second expert's opinion regarding injury to plaintiff's wrists from handcuffs. | 02/26/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. James Howard Bentley; Rule 414 order, admitting evidence of prior offenses of child molestation in child pornography prosecution. | 02/21/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Randy Clark v. Eagle Ottawa, LLC. motion to dismiss order dismissing Iowa common law public policy claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court declined to dismiss due to NLRA or LMRA preemption. Plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims remain.
| 02/20/2007 |
| - | USA v. Huntley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of indictment. Defendant argued his plea in state court to simple assault under Iowa Code 708.1(1) and 708.2(4) did not satisfy predicate requirements for federal charges of possessing firearm after misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. In recommending defendant's motion to dismiss be denied, Court found State court judgment established, on its face, the required predicate element of the charges. | 02/20/2007 |
| - | Mugan v. McGuire Law Firm | 02/20/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Beck v. Astrue - In affirming Commissioner's decision denying claimant's appliccations for SSI and disability insurance benefits, court found ALJ's credibility assessment and determination of claimant's residual functional capacity were supported by substantial evidence. | 02/16/2007 |
| - | United States v. Saucillo (Federal prisoners motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 asserting allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel; specifically, the defendant asserted his counsel was ineffective in failing to file an appeal; motion denied in its entirety; defendant did allege that he expressly direct his attorney to file an appeal ) | 02/14/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Pamela R. Reed v. Cedar County and Cedar County Sheriff Daniel Hannes, in his individual and official capacities; summary judgment order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions where plaintiff alleged Title VII and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims of sexual harassment (hostile work environment and constructive discharge) and retaliation (employment-related retaliation and retaliatory litigation), and a claim of battery.
| 02/08/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. James J. Parsons (Motion for return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g); after pleading guilty to the charged felony offenses, defendant sought to designate that his firearm collection, which was seized and held by the government, should be given to a friend; analysis of the competing equities in order to decide whether defendant, who was in lawful possession of the firearms at the time of his arrest and was not a convicted felon when he acquired the three firearms, may be permitted to designate to whom his firearm collection should be given. ) | 02/07/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Enrique Aragon-Hernandez (criminal defendant’s motion in limine: inaudibility of recordings rendering them untrustworthy as a whole and, therefore, inadmissible)
| 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 |
| - | Combs v. McMahon -- Report and recommendation that court grant Commissioner's motion for entry of final judgment, and reversal and remand for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 402(g). | 01/22/2007 |
| - | United States v. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi; motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and pre-indictment delay grounds; denying defendant's motion; holding that the conspiracy to commit document fraud charge and the fraudulent use of a social security number charge in the indictment were not barred by the statute of limitations; and holding that there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment due process clause due to unreasonable pre-indictment delay because defendant could not show actual or substantial prejudice.
| 01/22/2007 |
| - | USA v. Bauer -- Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence from traffic stop be denied. Court found defendant consented to search of his vehicle, his consent was not coerced by officers, and "plain view" doctrine was irrelevant to the analysis. | 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 |
| - | Crandall v. Barnhart -- Order denying defendant's motion to amend/correct judgment. | 01/11/2007 |
| - | Straitt v. Straitt -- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. Court found plaintiff had failed to show defendant had requisite minimum contacts with the State of Iowa to support personal jurisdiction over defendant in this court. | 01/08/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Ryan Keith Mathison (Following a jury verdict of guilty on all counts charged in the Second Superseding Indictment, both defendant filed timely motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; court holds that (1) viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty on Counts One through Seven, as alleged in the Second Superseding Indictment;(2) no grounds for a new trial on the defendant’s convictions exist because the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly weighs in favor of the jury verdict on all counts charged in the Second Superseding Indictment ; (3) the mid-trial publicity that resulted after the defendant voluntarily absconded did not prejudice the defendant and his Sixth Amendment rights were adequately protected;(4) the defendant’s post-trial motions are denied in their entirety.) | 01/05/2007 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Bucio-Sanchez -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found inevitable discovery doctrine justified admission of call made to defendant's c ell phone; protective sweep of trailer was justified under the circumstances, and evidence observed in plain view during protective sweep was admissible; and roommate had authority to consent to search of all of trailer except defendant's bedroom. | 01/03/2007 |
| - | Doctor John's Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa -- Order on motions in limine and objections to appearance of counsel. Court denied motions to exclude evidence and witnesses in bench trial; denied request for in camera review of documnets and interview of City Attorney; and overruled plaintiff's objections to defendant's representation by attorney who is associated with attorney who formerly represented plaintiff in very limited capacity during workers' compensation matter. | 01/02/2007 |
| - | U.S. v. Edward Valenciano (Motion to transfer trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21; analysis of whether defendant had met the high threshold of proof to show that case was one of the “rare and extreme cases” in which the court can presume “inherent prejudice” based on pretrial publicity, such that a transfer pursuant to Rule 21(a) was appropriate; alternative analysis of whether it was necessary to transfer the trial on the grounds of convenience of the parties and witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b)). | 12/27/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Dible v. Scholl and Maynard -- Order on parties' cross- motions for summary judgment. Former Iowa inmate (who had discharged sentence and been released) brought section 1983 action against State officials for violation of due process rights in connection with disciplinary notice that resulted in loss of good time credit. Court found disciplinary notice to be constitutionally deficient, and further found defendants were not entitled to qualitified immunity. Defendants' motion for summary judgment denied plaintiff's cross-motion granted; and case ordered to proceed to trial solely on issue of damages. | 12/20/2006 |
| - | Crandall v. Barnhart -- Order on judicial review from denial of Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ did not err in finding claimant's mental impairments not to be severe, but further found ALJ erred in failing to obtain updated evaluation of claimant's physical impairments and in assessing claimant's residual functional capacity. Court remanded case for calculation and award of benefits, but found disability onset date to be later than claimant alleged. | 12/15/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. B.H.; declaratory judgment finding that defendant was committed to a mental institution and, therefore, ordering his weapons and ammunition destroyed.,U.S. v. B.H.; declaratory judgment finding that defendant was committed to a mental institution and, therefore, ordering his weapons and ammunition destroyed. | 12/07/2006 |
| - | Thompson v. Barnhart -- Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and reversed decision, but from a later disability onset date than claimant had alleged. | 12/06/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Tolbert - Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found evidence was sezied lawfully at scene of traffic stop and need not be suppressed; defendant's pre-Miranda statements were custodial in nature and should be suppressed; and defendant later waived rights and gave statements voluntarily and intelligently, so post-Miranda statements need not be suppressed. | 12/04/2006 |
| - | Estate of Storm v. Northwest Iowa Hospital Corp. -- Report and recommendation on plaintiff's motion to certify question. Finding the issue to be ripe for state court review, the court recommended certification to the Iowa Supreme Court of the question, "Does an unborn fetus have a cause of action for wrongful death under Iowa Code section 611.20." | 12/04/2006 |
| - | Northeast Iowa Citizens for Clean Water v. AgriProcessors, Inc.; United States of America v. AgriProcessors, Inc.; Court entered consent decree after finding it was fair, reasonable and adequate. | 11/29/2006 |
| - | Edward D. Heaton v. The Weitz Company, Inc.; Title VII and ICRA retaliation, national origin; motion in limine | 11/22/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. James Joseph Sheridan; Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a one-count indictment which charged defendant with knowingly possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The court concluded that defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process right was not violated. It found there was no vindictive prosecution or unreasonable pre-indictment delay. | 11/16/2006 |
| - | Edward D. Heaton v. The Weitz Company, Inc.; Title VII and ICRA retaliation, national origin | 11/14/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Vincent & Karl Raymond Bertling (Following a jury verdict of guilty on all counts charged in the Second Superseding Indictment, both defendants filed timely motions for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and motions for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; court holds that (1) viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found both defendants guilty of conspiracy to corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impeded the due administration of justice in United States v. Vincent Bertling, CR05-4125-MWB, by intimidating witnesses, as alleged in Count One; (2) a reasonable jury could have found defendant Vincent guilty of the three counts of being an unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, as alleged in Counts Two, Three and Four; (3) with respect to the verdicts rendered on Counts Two, Three and Four against defendant Vincent, no miscarriage of justice has occurred; (4) the evidence supporting the convictions of the defendants on Count One weighs heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case; (5) the verdict as to Count One against defendants Vincent Bertling and Karl Raymond Bertling is set aside and Vincent Bertling and Karl Raymond Bertling are granted a new trial on this count; and (6) in all other respects, the defendants’ motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial are denied.) | 11/13/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | US v. Bradford; sentencing memorandum opinion on plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin, upward departure imposed because, during the conspiracy, defendant also sold heroin resulting in death | 11/08/2006 |
| - | Vasquez v. Barnhart -- Order granting untimely motion for attorney fees under EAJA. Court held that because thirty day filing requirement is not jurisdictional, it may be waived by the Government, which expressly did not object and asked court to grant claimant's motion for fees. | 11/08/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Jesse John Wendelsdorf (Objections to the PSIR launched by the defendant requesting the court to exclude certain amounts from its drug quantity determination; Court held: (1) Although acts surrounding a tank of anhydrous ammonia by the defendant were relevant, court would not include theoretical amount that could have been yielded from the tank because the uncontroverted evidence introduced at trial showed the anhydrous ammonia leaked out of the tank and was unusable; furthermore, even if tank should have been included, the government failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the amount of methamphetamine that could have been produced from the anhydrous in the tank because no reliable evidence was produced as to not only how much methamphetamine could be produced from the tank, but also how full the tank actually was when it was taken by the defendant; (2) PSIR inappropriately inflated the quantity that can be attributed to the defendant based on the testimony of a coconspirator with respect to the amount of methamphetamine that was traded in exchange for prescription pills; (3) A review of the entire trial transcript reveals that the coconspirators’ testimony has sufficient indicia of reliability and amounts attributed to the defendant by the coconspirators’ testimony is properly included in the court’s drug quantity calculation; while it is true that the coconspirators’ testimony produced some discrepancy with respect to the amount of methamphetamine involved, the court, in accord with applicable case law has erred on the side of caution and utilized the most conservative estimate proffered by the defendants’ coconspirators.) | 11/01/2006 |
| - | Balstad v. Barnhart -- Order reversing Commissioner's decision to deny claimant Title II Disability Insurance and Title XIV Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ improperly weighed the medical evidence, discredited the claimant's subjective complaints, and discounted the opinion of the claimant's treating physician. | 11/01/2006 |
| - | USA v. Huang and Long -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress physical evidence. Court found probable cause existed to support issuance of four warrants challenged by defendants, and recommended motion to suppress be denied. | 10/31/2006 |
| - | USA v. Donisi - Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found affidavit in support of search warrant application contained facts sufficient to provide probable cause for issuance of warrant. | 10/27/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Arturo Ruiz-Ahumada (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting relief on two grounds; specifically, the defendant asserted (1) an error based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), on the grounds that he was sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines regime, which impermissibly allowed a judge, as opposed to the jury, to adjust the sentencing range based on a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) that his plea was the product of coercion and therefore, not entered into voluntarily; motion denied in its entirety; first, defendant’s case was not pending when Booker was decided, and thus Booker’s holdings are an inapplicable basis to attack his sentence; second, the defendant’s own statements during the plea hearing demonstrate he pled guilty knowingly and voluntarily; defendant also filed separately a pro se Motion to Amend and a pro se Motion to Supplement; both motions are denied as untimely, as they do not relate back to his original § 2255 petition.) | 10/24/2006 |
| - | Elizabeth Chacey DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., Chart Acquisition Corp., Charles Hammond and Art Christoffersen; Order reinstating stay in pregnancy discrimination case (Title VII and ICRA); court denied defendants' motion to dismiss as moot and declined to give the state trial verdict preclusive effect where the judgment is pending appeal and where there is "substantial doubt" that state court judgment will be upheld on appeal. | 10/18/2006 |
| - | USA v. Becker -- Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence and statements be denied. Court found defendant's state probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search defendant's house pursuant to probation agreement when defendant associated with known drug user who had recent arrests, defendant tested positive for drug use, and defendant failed to obtain drug treatment as directed. | 10/18/2006 |
| - | USA v. Hoffman -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found officers were justified in conducting investigatory stop of defendant, and had probable cause to arrest him after he fled scene of suspected drug activity and failed to comply with officers' orders that he stop and remove his hand from his pants pocket. | 10/17/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Perez-Sanchez (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting relief on the following grounds: (1) a “Booker error,” based on the defendant’s contention that a jury, not the sentencing judge, should have determined the amount of drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing purposes; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to challenge the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841 to the extent that those provisions permitted the court to make drug quantity and role determinations in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and (3) failure of appellate counsel to argue that the defendant’s rights under the Vienna Convention were violated during his plea hearing on appeal; motion denied in its entirety; first, defendant’s case was not pending when Booker was decided, and thus Booker’s holdings are an inapplicable basis to attack his sentence; second, neither trial counsel’s nor appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient on the grounds alleged by the defendant. ) | 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 |
| - | USA v. Nieman -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss and motion to suppress. Court found informant's use of drugs with defendant did not constitute outrageous governmental conduct warranting either dismissal of case or suppression of evidence. Court further found probable cause supported issuance of search warrant, and warrant described items to be seized with sufficient particularity. | 10/05/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Alfredo Luna (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting as grounds the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for the following reasons: (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to fully impeach government witnesses; (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the edition of the federal guidelines used at the time of sentencing; (3) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the criminal history for defendant that was set out in his presentence investigation report; (4) that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the standard utilized by the court in determining the applicability of a two-level weapons enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b); (5) that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to fully impeach government witnesses; (6) that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue of the edition of the federal guidelines used at the time of sentencing; and, (7) that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise on appeal the issue of the court’s calculation of defendant’s criminal history. Defendant also challenged his sentence in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), arguing that the Booker decision must be given retroactive effect; motion denied in its entirety, first, the Booker decision does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, second, defendant had not established that his trial or appellate counsel were ineffective in representing defendant, specifically, defendant did not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s cross-examination of government witnesses at trial; defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the use of the 2000 edition of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines because the punishment under the 2000 and 1998 Sentencing Guidelines remained the same, because defendant’s criminal history was not manifestly less serious than that of defendants typically labeled category II, defendant did not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to seek a downward departure on the grounds that his assessed criminal history category overstated the seriousness of his criminal history; defendant’s counsel could not be faulted for not challenging the court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)’s two-level weapons enhancement to defendant where trial testimony showed that during the course of the drug conspiracy defendant possessed several firearms, including several pistols and an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle and threatened to use his AR-15 rifle on a possible informant and pointed a pistol at an individual during several drug transactions) | 10/03/2006 |
| - | Lundgren v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Claimant alleged disability due to fibromyalgia and other causes. In recommending reversal for payment of benefits, court found ALJ erred in discounting treating physician's opinion that claimant would be unable to work; in relying on consulting medical opinions based on outdated information; and in failing to give due consideration to third-party statements. | 09/29/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Juan Carlos Vazquez-Munoz (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting three allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; specifically, the defendant asserted his counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to file an appeal after being expressly directed to do so by the defendant; (2) failing to file an appeal without obtaining the defendant’s consent; and (3) failing to object to the PSIR regarding the defendant’s role in the offense; motion denied in its entirety; defendant did not expressly direct his attorney to file an appeal and he could neither prove breach of duty nor prejudice on either of his remaining claims.) | 09/28/2006 |
| - | Choma v. Barnhart -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court affirmed Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence existed to support ALJ's consideration of claimant's mental impairments under the regulatory Listings; ALJ gave proper weight to opinions of treating physician and therapist; and hypothetical question to vocational expert accurately reflected claimant's mental residual functional capacity, as determined by the ALJ. | 09/28/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | US v. Brion Johnson; pretrial matters on remand for child pornography charges, interpreting Adam Walsh Act
,US v. Brion Johnson; pretrial matters on remand for child pornography charges, interpreting Adam Walsh Act
| 09/25/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Hernandez (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting relief on two grounds; specifically, the defendant asserted (1) an error based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), on the grounds that he was sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines regime, which impermissibly allowed a judge, as opposed to the jury, to adjust the sentencing range based on a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) a somewhat related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to anticipate Booker, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which had been decided at the time of the defendant’s sentencing; motion denied in its entirety; first, defendant’s case was not pending when Booker was decided, and thus Booker’s holdings are an inapplicable basis to attack his sentence; second, counsel’s performance was not deficient on the grounds alleged by the defendant. ) | 09/25/2006 |
| - | Jordan v. Carr -- Findings of Face, Conclusions of Law, and Order on bench trial in case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Jordan, a Muslim, alleged jail official violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by failing to allow him to attend both Christian and Muslim services within the jail. Court found Joran failed to establish the defendant's actions substantially burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs, or that Jordan's rights were violated. Judgment for defendant. | 09/22/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Gregg v. Indian Motorcycle -- Order on Daubert motions and requests for preliminary evidentiary rulings | 09/13/2006 |
| - | Almanza v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. In recommending reversal and remand for further proceedings, court found ALJ erred in failing to give proper weight to opinions of nurse practitioner, failing to consider effects of claimant's obesity on her musculoskeletal complaints, and posing an inaccurate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. | 09/11/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Renee Carlson (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; specifically, the defendant asserted that (1) her plea was the product of coercion, (2) she was forced to incriminate herself, presumably by admitting to her involvement in the conspiracy during her plea hearing, (3) the government failed to disclose the evidence against her because she never personally viewed the evidence; additionally, the defendant contends her counsel was ineffective in (1) preparing her for her guilty plea, (2) failing to ensure she was read her Miranda rights, and (3) failing to inform her of her right to appeal; motion denied in its entirety; defendant was not entitled to relief on any of the alleged grounds.) | 09/11/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson v. Bruce Macaulay, Michael Parker, Holly Michael, The Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch and Linn County, Iowa; Order granting plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion in part, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, including Westfall certification, and denying as moot defendants' motion for protective order | 09/01/2006 |
| - | Mark v. Burger (state prisoner's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254: order granting relief on "Brady" claims) | 08/31/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Hernandez : (federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255: alleged “Booker error,” and allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel before, during, and after trial, including (1) failure to assert “Apprendi claim”; (2) failure to investigate the facts of the case, including facts that would have provided the basis to challenge the credibility of the government’s witnesses and the falsehoods in their trial testimony; (3) failure to challenge, at trial and on appeal, sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice, possession of a firearm, and drug quantity, and (4) failure to assert that the evidence showed multiple conspiracies instead of the single conspiracy with which Hernandez was charged, supplemented at evidentiary hearing to include (5) failure of trial counsel to advise him adequately of the law applicable to his consideration of whether to go to trial, plead guilty; determination of whether resentencing was appropriate relief on the last claim) | 08/30/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Maldonado-Gutierrez - Report and recommendation on defendants' joint motion to suppress evidence located during search of vehicle incident to traffic stop. In recommending denial of motion, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle; to detain occupants beyond scope of initial traffic stop; and to conduct warrantless search of vehicle's interior after drug dog indicated on headlight area of vehicle. | 08/22/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Jeffrey Determan (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting relief on one ground: that he received an illegal sentence based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005); motion denied in its entirety; first, defendant’s case was not pending when Booker was decided, and thus Booker’s holdings are an inapplicable basis to attack his sentence.) | 08/18/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Roberto Alvarez-Delgadillo (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting relief on two grounds; specifically, the defendant asserted (1) an error based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), on the grounds that a jury, not the sentencing judge, should have determined the amount of drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing purposes, and (2) a somewhat related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to challenge the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(A) and (B) to the extent that those provisions permitted the court to make drug quantity determinations in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); motion denied in its entirety; first, defendant’s case was not pending when Booker was decided, and thus Booker’s holdings are an inapplicable basis to attack his sentence; second, counsel’s performance was not deficient on the grounds alleged by the defendant.) | 08/14/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Pinkerton (Federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting two allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; specifically, the defendant asserted her counsel was ineffective in (1) preparing her for her guilty plea and (2) in representing to the prosecutor that the defendant was dishonest in her debriefings; motion denied in its entirety; defendant could neither prove breach of duty or prejudice on either claim.) | 08/11/2006 |
| - | United States of America v. Sergio Elizarraras-Sepulveda -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss one count of two-count indictment. Court found two counts, both involving possession of the same firearm and ammunition, were multiplicitous, and recommended Government be ordered to elect between counts, or to supersede and include both theories in a single count. | 08/09/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Robert Lee Kriens (federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255: allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel before and during sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement, including challenge to voluntariness of guilty plea and allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, including failure to investigate and present evidence that would purportedly prove that the defendant’s prior conviction for attempted burglary under Iowa law was not a “violent felony” for purposes of the armed career criminal enhanced mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)). | 07/25/2006 |
| - | Magdalene Jo Schepers v. Terex Corp., et al.; State-law defamation suit that is being stayed as a result of a pending state court lawsuit arising out of the same set of facts.
| 07/25/2006 |
| - | Coleman v. Barnhart -- Memorandum opinion and order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. In extremely close cases, court must affirm Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, rather than re-weighing the evidence de novo. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision and affirmed denial of benefits. | 07/25/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Lori Clare Kavitz : (federal prisoner’s motion to set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255: ten allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel before and during sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement, including challenge to voluntariness of guilty plea and request to reopen Apprendi claim, which had been dismissed on initial review, in light of Blakely). | 07/17/2006 |
| - | USA v. Kling -- Report and recommendation on three motions to suppress evidence in case involving charges of inducing a minor to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for purposes of producing photos and videos. In recommending that all three motions be denied, court found defendant's Miranda rights were not violated; officers' failure to provide copy of search warrant prior to initiating search did not warrant suppression; information provided by Internet Service Providers provided probable cause for search of defendant's computer and his residence; and probative value of explicit photos and videos outweighed prejudicial effect. | 07/12/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. August L. Holthaus, Jr.; sentencing memorandum opinion resolving advisory guidelines calculation issues relating to loss in bankruptcy proceeding and whether a bankruptcy trustee may recover restutition under the MVRA. | 07/07/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Mark Lou Meyer; Order revoking defendant's probation after he violated his conditions of probation by traveling out-of-state without permission and by having eight positive sweat patch test results | 07/07/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Daniel P. Mitchell; sentencing memorandum opinion | 06/22/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Goss International Corporation v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. and TKS, Inc.; Order granting in part Goss's motion for preliminary injunction | 06/15/2006 |
| - | Goss International Corporation v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. and TKS, Inc.; Order denying TKS's motion to stay judgment | 06/15/2006 |
| - | Richmond v. Burt -- Report and Recommendation that petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254 be denied. Court found petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted for failing to properly raise constitutional issue in Iowa courts relating to trial court's admission into evidence of conversation between petitioner and member of the clergy. | 06/15/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Javier Barajas Ramirez (federal defendant’s post-conviction motion to vacate sentence on a drug-trafficking charge pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to move for a safety-valve reduction in the defendant’s sentence and failure of appellate counsel to appeal the omission of a safety-valve reduction) | 06/13/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Homero Bustos Flores (federal defendant’s post-conviction motion to vacate sentence on a drug-trafficking charge pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, consisting of (a) denial of his right to testify; (b) failure to challenge the drug quantity calculation; (c) failure to raise a challenge pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), at sentencing; and (d) failure to make a timely objection to omission of safety-valve eligibility in the PSIR; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, who was the same as his trial counsel, consisting of failure to raise issues (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d); and (3) imposition by the trial court of a sentence in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights as established by Apprendi, consisting of judicial fact-finding regarding drug quantity and enhancement of his sentence based upon such improper fact-finding) | 06/13/2006 |
| - | USA v. Mathison -- Order denying applications for return of seized property. Court found proper procedures were followed in administrative forfeiture proceedings, and court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of those proceedings in the context of this criminal action. | 06/13/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Kent Raymond Platter; Order denying defendant's motion to dismiss alternate counts pursuant to United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2006); the court declined to compel the government to elect between multiplicitous counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (3).
| 06/12/2006 |
| - | Palmer v. Barnhart -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and title SVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to give proper weight to opinion of treating physician in finding claimant not to be disabled. Court recommended reversal and remand for payment of benefits. | 06/09/2006 |
| - | USA v. Haberek -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to strike the statutory presumption from 18 USC 228(b), as an unconstitutional violation of his Due Process rights. Court found authorities cited by defendant to be persuasive, and in absence of any resistance by the Government, recommended motion be granted. | 06/07/2006 |
| - | Sherri Jo Reid dba Colonial Square Tax and Accounting v. Pekin Insurance Co. v. Steve Klocke and Kathy Klocke; Order regarding motion for partial summary judgment | 06/06/2006 |
| - | Stewart v. Kautzky -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judment be granted on basis of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, as well as on the merits. | 06/06/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Steven Bradford; Order granting defendant's motion for specific enforcement of a plea agreement and dismissing the indictment. | 06/02/2006 |
| - | Gerald D. Donnell v. City of Cedar Rapids and Pat Engel; Order re defendants' motion for summary judgment (whistleblower) | 06/01/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Mankle v. Barnhart -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ correctly discounted treating physician's opinion letter, determined claimant's residual functional capacity, and found claimant's subjective complaints to be less than fully credible. Commissioner's decision affirmed. | 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 |
| - | Kuhn v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. In recommending remand for payment of benefits, count found commissioner gave too much weight to work assessment that predated disability onset date, and failed to give appropriate weight to opinion of examining consultative doctor. | 05/22/2006 |
| - | Netten v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. ALJ found claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity, and thus ALJ stopped evaluation of claim at step one of the sequential evaluation process. Court found record did not contain substantial evidence to support ALJ's decision, and recommended remand for further developmnet of the record and further consideration of claim through the sequential evaluation process. | 05/12/2006 |
| - | Schroder v. Barnhart -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review from denial of Title II disability benefits. Court found record did not contain substantial evidence to support Commissioner's decision that claimant, who suffers from severe scoliosis, asthma, arthritis, and other impairments, was not disabled prior to date last insured. Case reversed and remanded for calculation and award of benefits. | 05/11/2006 |
| - | Ubben v. Sauder Woodworking Co. -- Order denying third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. Third-party defendant, who shares Iowa citizenship with original plaintiffs, argued his addition to the case destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Court found third-party defendant was not indispensable party, and exception to supplemental jurisdiction found in 28 USC 1367(b) did not apply to defeat diversity jurisdiction. | 05/10/2006 |
| - | Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. G. Randall Bratton, Gary G. Bratton, Bratton Financial Services Corporation and Bratton International, Inc.; life insurance company sued agents and their independent marketing organization seeking a declaratory judgment; the court analyzed Iowa law and dismissed the claims against AEGON USA, Inc., the holding company that owns WRL; dismissed the negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation counterclaims; and determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact remaining on the counterclaims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel | 05/10/2006 |
| - | Clark v. Barnhart -- Memorandum, Opinion, and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to consider impact of claimant's obesity on his residual functional capacity, and in failing to give proper weight to opinions of physician's assistant and Goodwill evaluator as "other sources" regarding severity of claimant's impairments. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | 05/09/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Douglas Wayne Nielsen (Resentencing on remand pursuant to a written order; government’s motion to correct sentence by imposing the sentence with the defendant in open court; Court held: (1) Both the government and the defendant expressly waived objections during resentencing hearing; (2) The purposes of Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were served as defendant, during the resentencing hearing, was afforded the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of any information presented by the government or on which the court might otherwise rely, argue about the reliability and weight such information should be given, and present any mitigating evidence; (3) The government’s motion is denied to impose sentence in open court is denied and the amended judgment shall stand.) | 05/04/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Kennaway v. Barnhart -- Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming Commissioner's decision to deny SSI and DI benefits claiming disability on the basis of a back injury and Charcot-Marie Tooth Disease. | 05/02/2006 |
| - | Gettner v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Commissioner acknowledged ALJ erred in certain respects in sequential evaluation process, and requested remand for further proceedings. Court found record contained substantial evidence to prove claimant was disabled due to seizures, migraine headaches, and mental illness, and recommended reversal and remand for calculation and award of benefits. | 05/02/2006 |
| - |
In re
H & W Motor Express Company; Larry S. Eide, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Urban R. Haas and Patricia M. Haas, Individually and as Trustees of the Marie C. Haas Trusts, f/b/o Urban Andrew Haas, Christopher James Haas, Aimee Marie Haas, n/k/a Aimee Marie Haas Walsh and Catherine Anthoine Haas,
Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
Roger Waldner, Third-Party Defendant; Order on motion to withdraw reference of case or proceeding within case
| 05/01/2006 |
| - | Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc. v. Thomas J. Vilsack, et al; Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc., filed an official capacity suit against Iowa Attorney General Miller and the Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety in response to the enactment of Senate File 2330, which effectively bans the use of TouchPlay lottery machines in Iowa on May 3, 2006 at 11:59 p.m.; plaintiff sought preliminary and permanent injunctions and a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional because plaintiff owns 724 TouchPlay machines; Court finds that the state law is not a violation of the Contract Clause, the Takings Clause, the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution | 04/26/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Saenz (resentencing on remand pursuant to a written order; government’s motion to “correct sentence” by imposing the sentence with the defendant present in open court: holding that the defendant had waived her presence, if it was required) | 04/24/2006 |
| - | Loehr v. Barnhart -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to develop the record or discuss adequately claimant's allegation that he is unable to sit upright or bend forward without suffering disabling symptoms, and further failed to develop the record adequately regarding the extent to which claimant's mental impairment would affect his ability to function in the workplace. Court recommended reversal and remand for further proceedings. | 04/20/2006 |
| - | USA v. Avise -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Officer stopped vehicle registered to individual whose license was barred. Defendant had recently purchased vehicle and had no registration. Defendant's behavior led officers to believe he was under influence of alcohol or drugs. Officers arrested defendant to perform sobriety testing at police station. Defendant's car and jacket were searched incident to arrest, and drugs and other evidence were found. Search warrant executed at defendant's residence yielded further incriminating evidence. Court found officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was engaged in criminal activity justifying his warrantless arrest; search of vehicle and jacket incident to arrest was proper; and warrant was based on probable cause. | 04/18/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Douglas Wayne Nielsen (Resentencing on remand from the circuit for consideration in light of United States v. Booker; Court held: (1) Traditional departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 for overrepresentation of the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history was warranted; (2) Pursuant to § 4A1.3, the departure is limited to one criminal history category; (3) A non-Guidelines sentence is appropriate after consideration of all the § 3553(a) factors; and (4) The defendant is committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for 188 months on Count One of the Indictment, 188 months on Count One of the Information, and 92 months on counts Two through Seven of the Indictment, all to be served concurrently. ) | 04/13/2006 |
| - | Laffey v. Burt -- Report and recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Petitioner, convicted of two counts of sexual abuse of minors, argued (1) inconsistencies in victims' testimony and leading manner in which testimony was elicited rendered evidence insufficient under Due Process Clause to support guilty verdict; and (2) imposition of consecutive sentences violated Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Court recommended petition be denied on both claims. | 04/12/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. L.M. (a juvenile) Order on government's motion to transfer proceedings | 04/12/2006 |
| - | Langel v. Burt -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Court found petitioner failed to show his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to have trial court question defendant about his waiver of jury trial, or in failing to assert justification defense, and court recommended petition be denied. | 04/11/2006 |
 - | USA v. McCall -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count 2 of Indictment as multiplicitous. Defendant was charged in two counts of illegally possessing ammunition, in violation of two separate subsections of 18 USC 922(g), and argued the single incident of possession should be charged in only a single count pursuant to United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2006). Court agreed, and recommended Government be ordered either to elect between the two counts, or to supersede and include both theories or prosecution in a single count. | 04/11/2006 |
| - | United States v. Barnett (Motion to withdraw guilty plea to one of four counts after remand for resentencing: Rule 11(e) neither foreclosed the defendant from asserting, nor foreclosed the court from hearing, a motion to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea on jurisdictional grounds, and the defendant had not waived that motion by failing to assert it either at his original sentencing or on his original appeal; making, receiving, and possessing unregistered short-barreled shotguns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845, 5861 and 5871, are not “crimes of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), for purposes of a charge of using and carrying a short-barreled and shortened-length firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(c)(1)(B)(i)). | 04/05/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. L.M. (a juvenile); Order granting in part and denying in part government's motion to permit victims access to information and proceedings | 03/31/2006 |
| - | Higgins v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to obtain vocational expert's testimony or to develop other evidence of record with regard to impact of claimant's severe mental impairment on his functional capacity. Court recommended remand for further development of the record. | 03/29/2006 |
| - | United States v. Jesse John Wendelsdorf (Sentencing motion in limine brought by defendant requesting the court to exclude from its sentencing determination certain conduct of which the defendant was acquitted; Court held: (1) Based on the court’s firsthand knowledge and subsequent review of this evidence, the Government failed to prove the acquitted conduct a preponderance of the evidence, and that therefore, it could not be considered as relevant conduct during the defendant’s sentencing hearing; (2) Even if the Government had proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence, the court would exercise its discretionary powers and not consider the acquitted conduct based on the extraordinary facts and unique circumstances surrounding the case; (3) In the event the court is required to consider the acquitted conduct and apply the appropriate upward adjustment, a downward departure in the same amount would be authorized under the circumstances presented in this case, effectively vitiating any net gain to the defendant’s term of incarceration; (4) Therefore, during the defendant’s sentencing, the court will not consider additional evidence with respect to the acquitted charges.) | 03/24/2006 |
| - | United States v. Saenz : (resentencing on remand after the circuit court found the original 68% reduction in the defendant’s sentence for “substantial assistance” was “unreasonable” and “excessive”: suggesting that neither prior precedent nor recent data compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission supports labeling a 50 percent reduction for substantial assistance “extraordinary” and suggesting other lessons from the Sentencing Commission’s Special Post-Booker Coding Project Report; finding that the defendant was entitled, on resentencing, to a 68% reduction from a minimum Guidelines sentence of 63 months to 20 months for substantial assistance, based on § 5K1.1 factors fully present) | 03/23/2006 |
| - | Ulicki v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not err in failing to ask medical sources for specific statements regarding claimant's functional capacity when evidence clearly shows impairments are non-disabling. | 03/15/2006 |
| - | Clark v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly with regard to claimant's functional limitations, and as a result, ALJ's assessment of claimant's residual functional capacity was erroneous. Court recommended remand for new hearing. | 03/10/2006 |
| - | Jordan v. Linn County Jail, et al -- Report and recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment in this action under 42 USC 1983. Plaintiff alleged defendants denied him the right to practice his religion by not allowing him to attend both Christian and Muslim services, and by denying him literature and a prayer rug. Defendants claimed plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Court found defendants had responded timely to requests for literature and prayer rug, and had provided the items to plaintiff. Court found defendants failed to show plaintiff, in fact, had right to appeal denial of grievance, and recommended motion be denied on claim that plaitniff's right were violated by denial of right to attend both types of religious services. | 03/10/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Schneiders v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's misstatement of claimant's environmental limitations in hypothetical question to vocational expert was harmless error; ALJ made proper credibility analysis; and record contained substantial evidence to support Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled. | 03/07/2006 |
| - | Offield v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits.
Court found record did not contain adequate evidence of claimant's ability to work in light of mental limitations, and therefore did not contain substantial evidence to support Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled. Court recommended remand for further development of the record. | 03/03/2006 |
| - | Claussen v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation that Commissioner's decision be affirmed on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found record contained substantial evidence to support ALJ's decision that claimant failed to show she became disabled prior to her date last insured. | 03/02/2006 |
| - | Hamann v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. After ALJ issused decision favorable to claimant, ALJ received income records indicating claimant had worked somewhat longer than originally had been apparent. ALJ issued revised opinion with newly-determined disability onset date, and found that due to waiting period and claimant's pending retirement age, claimant was not entitled to benefits. Court found ALJ's revised determination of disability onset date was arbitrary and erroneous, and recommended reversal and remand for calculation and award of benefits based on revised disability onset date. | 03/01/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States of America v. Turner -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to sever two counts of Superseding Indictment for trial. Count 1 charged defendant with discrete act of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. Count 2 charged defendant with perjury in another individual's trial that occurred more than four months prior to act alleged in Count 1. Court found the two offenses did not meet any of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a), and recommended counts be severed for trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). | 02/21/2006 |
| - | Quee v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to consider claimant's ability to work during one-year period while she was recovering from multiple shoulder surgeries while managing her other medical complaints. However, court found ALJ properly discounted treating orthopedist's assessment of claimant's residual functional capacity, and therefore ALJ presented proper hypothetical question to vocational expert. Recommendation that Commissioner's decision be affirmed in part and reversed in part. | 02/15/2006 |
| - | Connie M. Gretillat v.
Care Initiatives; Civil Rights/employment discrimination case under American with Disabilities Act; Court finds plaintiff was not disabled and grants defendant's motion for summary judgment | 02/13/2006 |
| - | United States of America v. Yerkes -- Report and recommendation on motions to suppress evidence. Court found officer's approaching defendant to talk to her in parking lot was lawful; defendant consented to search of her vehicle; and evidence seized from defendant's vehicle, and from search of apartment pursuant to warrant, should not be suppressed. Court further found defendant had invoked her right to remain silent and requested an attorney, and officers' re-initiation of contact to interview defendant violated her Fifth Amendment rights; thus her statements to officers during post-arrest interview should be suppressed. | 02/07/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Shaun Joseph Ruff; Order re remand from Eighth Circuit regarding restitution and double recovery | 02/02/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Boykin v. Alliant Energy Corp. - Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff brought racial discrimination action against former employer, and slander action against former coworker. Court found plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of racial discrimination, and granted summary judgment in favor of employer. Court found question of fact existed on one slander issue, and retained supplemental jurisdiction over the issue for trial. | 01/30/2006 |
| - | Lang v. Ault -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court found state courts correctly determined petitioner had breached plea agreement, and petitioner could not show prejudice from counsel's failure to object to state's sentencing recommendation. | 01/26/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Shaun Joseph Ruff; Order denying defendant's motion for recusal | 01/25/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Bailey v. Barnhart -- Amended Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ properly rejected opinions of consulting psychologist; gave proper weight to opinion of claimant's treating physician; and properly applied Medical-Vocational Guidelines in finding claimant was not disabled. | 01/23/2006 |
| - | Bailey v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ properly rejected opinions of consulting psychologist; gave proper weight to opinion of claimant's treating physician; and properly applied Medical-Vocational Guidelines in finding claimant was not disabled. | 01/23/2006 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Williamson -- Order on motion to continue competency hearing. Court discusses interplay between statutes authorizing competency evaluations of criminal defendants in the federal system, and the Speedy Trial Act. | 01/18/2006 |
| - | United States v. Easley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from two separate searches. First search took place at Omaha, Nebraska, bus station, when officers observed suspicious actions by defendant and companion, neither was able to produce adequate identification, and companion ran from police. Second search took place at Sioux City, Iowa, motel, after officers learned drugs had been sold in motel room and arrested all occupants for frequenting disorderly house. Court found officers had probable cause to detain defendant and conduct pat-down search at bus station, and to detain, arrest, and search defendant at motel. | 01/09/2006 |
| - | Fuhrman v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability on basis of Chiari Malformation type I, which caused her headaches, vertigo, and other symptoms. Court found substantial evidence in record supported Commissioner's decision that plaintiff's complaints were not fully credible, and recommended Commissioner's decision denying benefits be affirmed. | 01/06/2006 |
| - | U.S. v. Daniel P. Mitchell; Order granting defendant's motion for new trial | 01/04/2006 |
| - | Hicok v. Barnhart. Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ improperly discounted opinions of claimant's treatment physicians and vocational rehabilitation evaluators that claimant was unable to work due to fibromyalgia and other medical problems. Court recommended Commissioner's decision be reversed, and case be remanded for payment of benefits. | 12/29/2005 |
| - | Colleen Benedict and Joseph Benedict v. Zimmer, Inc.; Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment | 12/16/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (297 page opinion denying defendant's request for post-trial relief) | 12/16/2005 |
| - | Iowa Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v.
Tanager Place and Tanager, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff v. Iowa Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant; Tanager Place, Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
Sylvia Piper, Third-Party Defendant; Order regarding federal supplemental jurisdiction | 12/13/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Kevin Patrick O'Connell; Order setting aside magistrate judge's report and recommendation re motion to suppress | 12/07/2005 |
| - | In Re Francis P. Takes and Mary L. Takes, Debtors; (LaSalle Bank, N.A. and Valley Bank, Appellants v. Frances P. Takes and Mary L. Takes); Order reversing Bankruptcy Court's finding that debtor's residence was completely exempt | 12/05/2005 |
| - | Colleen Benedict and Joseph Benedict v. Zimmer, Inc.; Order regarding Rule 72 motion | 12/05/2005 |
| - | Garcia-Moreno v. Great West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. In ERISA action, Court found plaintiff was entitled to life insurance benefits for death of his son, who had used false identity to obtain employment. Court found Plan administrator had sufficient evidence to identify decedent, and to identify plaintiff as decedent's beneficiary. | 12/05/2005 |
| - | Bell v. Barnhart - Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Claimant alleged disability due to diabetes, hypertension, and heart condition. Court concurred in Commissioner's decision that claimant was able to return to his past work, and recommended Commissioner's decision be affirmed. | 12/05/2005 |
| - | Garcia-Moreno v. Great West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. In ERISA action, Court found plaintiff was entitled to life insurance benefits for death of his son, who had used false identity to obtain employment. Court found Plan administrator had sufficient evidence to identify decedent, and to identify plaintiff as decedent's beneficiary. | 12/01/2005 |
| - | USA v. Lamere - Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence be denied. Officers stopped vehicle in which Defendant was passenger for purpose of arresting vehicle's driver. Drugs were found in vehicle and Defendant was arrested, as well. Rejecting Defendant's contrary argument, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle, arrest driver, search vehicle, and arrest Defendant. | 11/29/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Wedebrand v. Ault -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Petitioner alleged his state and federal attorneys were ineffective in failing to advise him properly concerning plea proposal made by state and federal governments. Court found petitioner failed to show his attorneys were ineffective, and recommended petition be denied. | 11/17/2005 |
| - | USA v. Morris -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence. Defendant arguerd officers lacked probable cause to stop his vehicle and arrest him, and also that his arrest was based on racial profiling. Court recommended motions be denied, finding no evidence to suggest racial profiling and officers had probable cause to stop and arrest defendant. | 11/17/2005 |
| - | Attorney's Process and Investigation Services, Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin an action pending in the Court of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; defendant previously brought a suit in that court against plaintiff alleging various torts; plaintiff alleged the tribal court did not have jurisdiction over it because it is a non-Indian; plaintiff further alleged it would be irreparably harmed if the tribal court action were to proceed because the tribal court is biased, it would not be allowed to assert a counterclaim against the Tribe, and the 2003 contract it entered into with the Tribe contains an arbitration clause; Court found it did not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit; court denied plaintiff's claim that exhaustion of tribal court remedies would be futile and stayed the federal action pending the exhaustion of tribal remedies; court determined the tribal court must, in the first instance, determine the extent of its own jurisdiction
| 11/15/2005 |
| - | Fair v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to recognize debilitating nature of fibromyalgia per Eighth Circuit case law, and improperly disregarded claimant's subjective complaints of pain and limitations. Court recommended reversal and remand for calculation and award of benefits. | 11/09/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Peterson v. Weatherly ( Report and recommendation on defendant's motion for summary judgment in this prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff alleged defendant, who was nurse at facility, ordered his confinement in medical segregation, which led him to develop ischial ulcers. Court found defendant did not order plaintiff's confinement, and she performed no actions that led, or could have led, to plaintiff developing his ulcers, or that otherwise violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Court recommended summary judgment be granted in defendant's favor.) | 11/01/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Jose De Jesus Ibarra-Castaneda, Luis Armando Varela-Arteaga, Hacienda Las Glorias, Inc., Mexico of Cedar Rapids, Inc., Cuatro, Inc. and Hot Springs, Inc.; Order re defendants' motion for recusal | 10/31/2005 |
| - | Wagner Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The Jym Bag Company v. John Deere Shared Services, Inc., f/k/a Deere Marketing Services, Inc.; In a case involving an alleged oral modification of a written licensing agreement, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the modification failed for lack of consideration, indefinite terms and lack of mutual assent; defendant argued plaintiff could not claim the contract had been modified and breached, due to the doctrine of merger; defendant further argued the alleged oral statement was too indefinite to establish a claim of promissory estoppel; court agreed with defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims; court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on both counts | 10/31/2005 |
| - | United Fire & Casualty Company v. Applied Financial, Inc.; Order re defendant Applied Financial, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, transfer to Utah | 10/28/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Jeremy Ray Hall; Order re defendant's motion to suppress | 10/13/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Wendel -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of motion to suppress evidence from search of defendant's residence. Court found defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and officers did not enter residence until written consent was given by defendant. | 10/06/2005 |
| - | Medical Associates Health Plan, Inc. dba Medical Associates Health Maintenance Organization v. CIGNA Corporation; Order on motions for summary judgment - breach of contract | 10/06/2005 |
| - | GreatAmerica Leasing Corp. v.
Rohr-Tippe Motors, Inc., et al.;
Order on plaintiff's application for attorneys fees | 10/06/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States of America v. Johnson and Heidzig -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to suppress, recommending motion be granted as to pre-Miranda statements, and denied as to post-Miranda statements and also as to cocaine found on defendant Heidzig's person. One key issue was whether officer's statement to defendant Heidzig that he wanted item she was concealing, and his directions to her to remove the item from her pants and place it on the floorboard of his vehicle, constituted questioning for purposes of Miranda. Court found that it did; however, court also found defendant Heidzig was undr de facto arrest at the time, and therefore, was subject to search incident to arrest, which would have led to discovery of drugs in any event. | 09/22/2005 |
| - | Talkington v. Barnhart -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in making inferences from medical records regarding the impact of claimant's mental impairments on her ability to work. Commissioner's decision reversed and case remanded for further development of the record. | 09/20/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Araceli Martinez; Order on defendant's motion to recuse | 09/07/2005 |
| - | GreatAmerica Leasing Corporation v. Rohr-Tippe Motors, Inc., et al.; Order on plaintiff's motion for remand | 09/06/2005 |
| - | O'Brien v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court recommended Commissioner's decision be affirmed, finding no error in ALJ's failure to consider State's determination that claimant qualified for certain state benefits, and otherwise finding record contained substantial evidence to support Commissioner's decision. | 09/06/2005 |
| - | Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Tanager Place and Tanager, Inc.; Tanager Place v. Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.; Tanager Place v. Sylvia Piper; Order on motion for summary judgment; Order on motion for pretrial determination of defamation per se | 08/24/2005 |
| - | McGhghy v. Hastings -- Report and recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus/writof coram nobis. Court recommended denial of petition for lack of jurisdiction. | 08/24/2005 |
| - | Berg v. Barnhart - Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found claimant failed to show she was disabled prior to her date last insured, and recommended Commissioner's decision be affirmed. | 08/23/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Scott W. Meiner; Order regarding motion to suppress | 08/16/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Craig Allen Thomas; Order regarding defendant's motion to suppress | 08/08/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Shaw v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Social Security benefits. Court found record lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether claimant was disabled on the basis of a mental impairment, and recommended remand for further proceedings. | 08/04/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Dustin Honken (206 page ruling denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal or in the alternative new trial) | 07/29/2005 |
| - | Weyerhaeuser Corporation d/b/a Cedar River Paper Company v. D.C. Taylor Company; In a ruling on the merits following a bench trial regarding whether the defendant's construction of two paper mill roofs breached the roofing subcontracts, the court held plaintiff failed to prove that it performed under the contracts and that defendant breached them.
| 07/29/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Keough -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in warrantless search of his residence. Court found Government failed to meet its burden to show defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and recommended motion be granted. | 07/21/2005 |
| - | Hedinger v. Barnhart -- Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found record contained substantial evidence to support Commissioner's denial of benefits, and recommended Commissioner's decision be affirmed. | 07/20/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Mummert - Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment. Defendant challeged adequacy of indictment that failed to allege interstate commerce nexus in charge brought under 18 USC 922(a)(1)(A). Court found interstate commerce connection was not an essential element of the offence, and recommended motion be denied. | 07/11/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. King - report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress his confession, recommending motion be denied. Court found defendant was not promised leniency in return for information, and he was not mentally impaired by virtue of being under the influence of drugs at time of confession. | 07/11/2005 |
| - | United States v. B.H.; After the defendant was committed under Iowa law to outpatient care and subsequently released, he sought to repossess firearms seized prior to his commitment. The state argued he was not entitled to the return of his firearms under state and federal law; the state court judge ruled against the state and ordered the firearms to be returned to the defendant. The US Attorney's Office subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action asking this court to declare the firearms contraband as to the defendant due to his prior commitment. The court held the US Attorney's Office was virtually represented by the state in the prior proceeding and thus was precluded from pursuing the civil action in this court. | 07/07/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Cooperative Elevator Association v. General Railway Corporation -- Order reinstating entry of default against defendant, and Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Plaintiff sought equitable relief to prevent defendant from committing further waste of rail line pending proper application to and authorization from Surface Transportation Board to abandon the line. Court found subject matter jurisdiction exists in federal court over plaintiff's equitable claim, and recommended entry of injuction against defendant. | 06/30/2005 |
| - | Lisa Mackie n/k/a Lisa Swalley v. U.S. Manufacturing, Inc. and Global Resources Recovery Organization, Inc.; In a case alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims in violation of Title VII and ICRA and state common law assault and battery claims, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, hostile work environment or retaliation. The plaintiff did not resist the defendants' motion as it related to the assault and battery claims. The court found the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all counts.
| 06/29/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Strang v. Barnhart -- Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Social Security disability benefits. Court found record contained evidence to support both the claimant's position and the Commissioner's decision. Therefore, due to deferential standard of review, court recommended Commissioner's decision be affirmed. | 06/23/2005 |
| - | Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Sand Livestock Systems, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Court reserved ruling and certified to the Iowa Supreme Court the question of whether pollution exclusions in insurance policies relieve plaintiff from any obligation to defend, indemnify, or pay damages resulting from the death of an individual who inhaled carbon monoxide fumes. | 06/21/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence arising from execution of search warrant at defendant's residence. Court found probable cause to support the warrant and recommended denial of motion. | 06/09/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Aguilar-Barraza -- Report and recommendation on defendants' motions to suppress evidence. Court found pre-Miranda questions about whether defendant was in possession of drugs were intended to elicit incriminating statements and should be suppressed. Court found no constitutional infirmity in search of defendant incident to arrest, search of defendant's vehicle, consent search of defendant's room in family home, search of second defendant's vehicle in parking area across alley from residence, search warrant for family residence, and defendant's post-Miranda statements. | 06/08/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order on defendant’s motion to exclude hearsay testimony during “penalty phase” on confrontation clause, due process clause, and statutory grounds) | 06/06/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment on basis of pre-indictment delay, or alternatively to amend or strike one count for insufficiency of evidence. Court found defendant failed to show improper motive for pre-indictment delay and failed to show prejudice resulting therefrom. Court further found question of sufficiency of evidence is one for jury. Court recommended denying motion on all grounds. | 06/03/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Thomas W. Prochaska v. Color-Box, L.L.C.; The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of age discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiff did not prove he was performing his job duties at a level that met the employer's reasonable expectations prior to his termination. Furthermore, if the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case, the employer produced a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence the employer's reason was a pretext for age discrimination.
| 06/01/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Jones -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Defendant, who was stopped and then arrested for minor traffic violations, claimed officer lacked probable cause to detain him at scene to await drug dog, to arrest him, and to search his vehicle incident to arrest. Defendant also claimed search warrant application lacked probable cause because it failed to show connection between defendant and place to be searched. Court found officer had probable cause to stop, detain, and arrest defendant; to search vehicle incident to arrest; and for magistrate to find probable cause to issue search warrant. | 06/01/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to transfer trial to another division within the district. Court recommends trial court reserve ruling on the motion for transfer until voir dire, or at least until responses are received to jury questionnaire. | 05/27/2005 |
| - | Local 288 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. CCT Corporation d/b/a Black Hawk Electric Co. and All County Electric; The court ordered an employer -- who is not a union shop but previously was found to be the alter ego of a union shop -- to pay backpay wages to the union on behalf of its employees and to comply with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and NECA. The court found the employer never gave notice of its intent no longer to be bound by the CBAs and thus is bound by a CBA unilaterally obtained by the union via an interest arbitration clause. | 05/25/2005 |
| - | All County Electric Company v. Local 288 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; The court ordered an employer -- who is not a union shop but previously was found to be the alter ego of a union shop -- to pay backpay wages to the union on behalf of its employees and to comply with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and NECA. The court found the employer never gave notice of its intent no longer to be bound by the CBAs and thus is bound by a CBA unilaterally obtained by the union via an interest arbitration clause. | 05/25/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Hessman -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for speedy trial violation. Court found no speedy trial violation where neither party had notified the court, as previously ordered, of U.S. Supreme Court's denial of defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. | 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 |
| - | Keene v. Ault -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254. Petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failing to challenge Iowa Code section 709C.1 as unconstitutionally vague; (2) allowing petitioner to plead guilty in absence of adequate factual basis; and (3) failing to inform petitioner fully about collateral consequences of guilty plea. Court recommended denial of petition on all grounds. | 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 |
| - | Maghee v. Ault (Report and recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Petitioner filed petition to challege disciplinary action taken against him in connection with his attempt to mail sealed letter to attorney. Court found (1) state courts failed to address petitioner's constitutional claim at all, with result that state court legal conclusions were entitled to no deference; but (2) no First Amendment violation occurred; and (3) some evidence existed to support administrative sanction.) | 05/11/2005 |
| - | Bolden v. Rogerson (Report and recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 24 USC 2254. Petitioner entered guilty pleas to two burglary charges. He was represented by court-appointed counsel in one case. In the other case, he represented himself pro se, with court-appointed standby counsel. Petitioner claimed his guilty pleas were invalid because he had not made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, and he did not understand all the consequences of pleading guilty. As grounds for habeas relief, he claimed his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise these claims. Court found no merit in any claim and recommended denial of petition, relying on Iowa v. Tovar, 541 US 77 (2004), and Page v. Burger, 2005 WL 100500 (8th Cir. May 2, 2005). | 05/06/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson : (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order denying defendant’s renewed motion to strike death penalty where government is no longer asserting guilt as a “principal”) | 05/03/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to exclude evidence and argument that she acted as a “principal” in the alleged killings) | 05/03/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Newkirk v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability on the basis of chronic depression. Court found ALJ erred in discounting opinions of plaintiff's mental health treatment team, and recommended reversal and remand for award of benefits.) | 04/28/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. David L. Taylor, Jr.; Order regarding motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence | 04/28/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. David L. Taylor, Jr.; Order regarding motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | 04/28/2005 |
| - | Powell v. Barnhart (Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming Commissioner of Social Security's denial of benefits to plaintiff as a disabled adult child.) | 04/26/2005 |
| - | White v. Kautzky (Report and recommendation on merits of this action brought under 42 USC 1983. Plaintiff claimed contract attorney system in Iowa state prisons, and failure ot keep prison law library up to date, denied his right of access to the courts. Court found no violation and recommended judgment for defendants.) | 04/25/2005 |
| - | United States of America v. Hinman, Dose and Weber (Report and recommendation on motions to dismiss Second Superseding Indictment, or to require plaintiff to elect between what defendants claimed to be multiplicitous counts. Defendants raised two double jeopardy arguments against indictment which charged them with violations of 18 USC 1035 and 18 USC 1001. Court rejected both arguments and recommended motions to dismiss be denied. Court also rejected one defendant's claim that indictment failed to charge defendants properly under 18 USC 1516.) | 04/22/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | United States of America v. Nairn (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion pursuant to 28 USC 2255. Defendant sought to withdraw guilty plea to one charge of indictment on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court found counsel was ineffective in failing to recognize, and advise defendant of fact, that plaintiff's Rule 11 letter and court's recitation of elements of one charge were incorrect. Defendant pled guilty to charge of possessing firearms "during and in relation to" a drug crime, when indictment charged him with possessing firearms "in furtherance of" a drug crime. Court recommended defendant be allowed to withdraw guilty plea to that count of the indictment.) | 04/12/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson : (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to charge offenses owing to omission of “substantive connection” between killings and drug conspiracy or CCE) | 04/11/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Kroll v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to evaluate the claimant's mental capacity under Listing 12.05, and in failing to evaluate properly the claimant's physical capacity and his credibility. Court recommended remand for further proceedings.) | 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 |
| - | Coan v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability on the basis of chronic back pain. ALJ found plaintiff could return to her past relevant work, and stopped with step four of sequential evaluation process. Court found plaintiff could not return to her past relevant work up to a point, and ALJ should have proceeded with step five of evaluation. In addition, court recommended remand for further proceedings because the record contained no evidence whatsoever of plaintiff's condition or treatment for nearly two years prior to the ALJ's decision.) | 04/01/2005 |
| - | CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., James Howard, Troy Shaver, Larry Uland, Shane Vanden Heuvel, Robert L. Simpson, II, and Keith P. Bell; Defendant J.B. Hunt moves the court to dismiss the case pursuant to the first-filed rule, transfer it for consolidation with pending litigation between CRST and J.B. Hunt in the Western District of Oklahoma, abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of an Arkansas state action between CRST and J.B. Hunt, or stay it pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit between CRST and another trucking competitor. The court denies the motion on all grounds. | 03/31/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); pretrial ruling on the proper degree of case-specific questioning, if any, that is permissible in the course of life- or death-qualifying prospective jurors) | 03/31/2005 |
| - | Krowiorz v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in finding plaintiff could return to her past relevant work, in failing to present hypothetical question to Vocational Expert that included all of plaintiff's impairments, and in failing to make a determination as to whether narcotic addition was contributing factor material to determination of disability. Court recommended reversal and remand for further proceedings.) | 03/30/2005 |
| - | Seitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Merck & Co., Inc. Long Term Disability Program for Non-union Employees; plaintiff challenged the plan administrator's decision denying him long-term disability benefits in an ERISA action; Court found the administrator's decision was not an abuse of discretion and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants
| 03/30/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Wilberding v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion for remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g). Court recommended motion be granted and case be remanded due to ALJ's failure to obtain and consider subsequent claim file, as ordered by the court upon prior remand.) | 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 |
| - | United States of America v. Summers (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for violation of Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. Applying Barker v. Wingo, court found approximately one-year delay between indictment and defndant's arrest gave rise to presumption of prejudice; delay was due to plaintiff's negligence; defendant had asserted his right timely; and delay had prejudiced defendant's ability to defend against the charges. Finding all four Barker factors weighed in defendant's favor, court recommended dismissal of indictment.) | 03/18/2005 |
| - | Willemssen v. The Conveyor Company (Memorandum Opinion & Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff claimed violation of FMLA, and wrongful termination under common law. Held: Applicable data for determination of whether FMLA applies is date employee's leave begins. Plaintiff was not "eligible employee" under FMLA on date her leave began, so defendant did not violate FMLA when it terminated plaintiff for excessive leave.) | 03/18/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order regarding intention of defendant, who had given notice of intent to rely on mental condition evidence in the "penalty phase," to assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to questions about her involvement in the charged murders during mental examinations by government mental health experts) | 03/17/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Maurice Wilkins; Court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel
| 03/17/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); ruling denying defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of identification of remains where defendant has stipulated to identity of remains) | 03/10/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Ortiz-Martinez (Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. Defendant sought dismissal of Indictment for violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a) requirements that he be brought before a magistrate judge "without unreasonable delay." Court found defendant was in state custody until one day before his initial appearance, and defendant failed to show any prejudice from delay in arresting him on federal charges and bringing him to federal court.) | 03/07/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); order for return to defendant of privileged documents obtained by the law enforcement officers) | 03/02/2005 |
| - | Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Election Board v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Regional Director and Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Aurene M. Martin, First Assistant and Principal Advisor; motion to dismiss filed by current election board; case dismissed because the motion to dismiss raises intra-tribal disputes regarding (1) any election board's authority under the Tribe's Constitution to file a lawsuit in federal court and, if so, (2) which election board is the proper plaintiff in this suit
| 03/02/2005 |
| - | Galm v. Eaton Corporation (Order on motion for discovery in ERISA action. Court analyzed plaintiff's discovery requests pursuant to standard of review for decisions of ERISA plan administrators in the Eighth Circuit. Court granted plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether conflict of interest between parties affected defendant's decision to deny plaintiff's claim for benefits.) | 03/01/2005 |
| - | Willis v. Smith, et al (Report and recommendation on the merits in this action under 42 USC s. 1983, brought by a patient confined in a mental health facility under Iowa's sexually violent predator statute. The plaintiff complained his constitutional rights were violated when a package addressed to him, containing a book, was opened outside his presence, and when the defendants decided to withhold the book from him. The book in question, published by an anti-polygraph organization, argues against the validity of polygraph examinations and contains a discussion of countermeasures. The defendants, who use polygraph examiantions extensively in treating patients, found some of the book's contents to be counter-therapeutic, and also objected to the plaintiff's receipt of any information from this publisher. The court found the defendants violated the plaintiff's rights in opening the package outside his presence, but ordered no relief because the plaintiff sought only injunctive relief and the institution had already changed its policy to provide that all packages would be opened in the recipients' presence. The court found it was a violation of the plaintiff's rights to withhold the entire book, and also to make a decision based on the source of the information rather than on its content. The court also found the defendants' current mail and grievance policies and procedures are constitutional, and the defendants are entitled to evaluate whether written materials may enter the unit on the basis of the defendants' reasoned, professional judgment.) | 02/28/2005 |
| - | American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Richard Yantis; This preliminary injunction motion arises in the context of a restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement. After applying the Dataphase factors, the court found the plaintiff/franchisor demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits, the threat of irreparable harm, the balance of harm and the public interest all weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction against the defendant/former franchisee.
| 02/28/2005 |
| - | Brian R. Sillick v. John F. Ault; In the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, the court found the state courts' analysis of Sillick's ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure to object to allegedly flawed jury instructions did not result in decisions contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Furthermore, the state courts' analysis of such claims did not result in a decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Sillick's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims are procedurally defaulted.
| 02/25/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | USA v. Lee (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant's companion had expectation of privacy in motel room and right to consent to search of motel room; officers' forced entry into motel room occupied by defendant was warranted based on outstanding arrest warrant and on exigent circumstances; search of motel room was valid based on companion's consent to search. Court recommended defendant's motion to suppress be denied.) | 02/23/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson : (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); ruling on second round of pretrial motions) | 02/18/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Eddie Denton; In a case involving an individual who injured his head after committing the crime but before being indicted, the court found, based on medical evidence, trial counsel's testimony, the defendant's childrens' affidavits, and the court's own recollection of the defendant's trial testimony and demeanor, the defendant received due process and was competent to stand trial and to assist in his defense.
| 02/16/2005 |
| - | Laffey v. Ault (Report and recommendation on State's motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Petitioner filed direct appeal after sentencing, raising Eighth Amendment issue. Appellate court remanded for resentencing, discussing Eighth Amendment issue fully but deciding case on other grounds. On appeal after resentencing, petitioner failed to reassert Eighth Amendment argument, believing to do so would be moot given prior appellate court decision on the issue. Respondent argued the issue was unexhausted. Court found any failure to exhaust could be excused on basis of futility, and recommended motion to dismiss be denied.) | 02/09/2005 |
| - | Mallett v. Naph Care, Inc. (Report and recommendation, recommending defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in prisoner civil rights action brought under 42 USC section 1983. Prisoner who was given wrong medication suffered allergic reaction. Court found nurse's negligence was not actionable under section 1983; plaintiff failed to show defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; and liability may not be grounded upon respondeat superior theory.) | 02/09/2005 |
| - | Clay v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court recommended affirming Commissioner's decision that claimant with amputated lower left leg retained capacity to work.) | 02/04/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Hayes v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to follow directions of Appeals Council to take claimant's obesity into account in assessing his residual functional capacity and in determining he could work. Court further found ALJ improperly implied claimant should have been able to lose weight, and relied on that conclusion in finding claimant was not disabled. Court recommended remand for calculation and payment of benefits.) | 01/21/2005 |
| - | USA v. Dose, et al. (Report and recommendation on numerous motions challenging sufficiency of Superseding Indictment. In light of 1/12/05 Supreme Court decision in Booker and Fanfan, court recommended defendants' motions to strike "Notice of Additional Relevant Facts" from indictment be granted (withdrawing prior R&R to the contrary). Court recommended denying motions to dismiss indictment or require Government to elect between charging defendants under 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 1035 on basis of double jeopardy; court found Congress intended that conduct may be punishable under both sections. Court recommended striking fraud allegations for lack of specificity, but otherwise recommended denying motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. Court recommended denying motion to suppress and in limine to prevent introduction of evidence derived from interview between corporation's attorney and defendant Hinman; court found no attorney-client privilege existed between attorney and defendant.) | 01/12/2005 |
| - | Terry Denner v. Deere & Company; The court granted summary judgment in the defendant's favor where the plaintiff, alleging a theory of promissory estoppel, failed to show the defendant made a clear and definite promise of employment.
| 01/07/2005 |
| - | U.S. v. Angela Johnson (death-penalty prosecution pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); ruling on first round of pretrial motions) | 01/03/2005 |
| - | 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 |
| - | Womack v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to take plaintiff's extreme obesity into account in assessing plaintiff's credibility and determining her residual functional capacity. Court recommended case be remanded with instructions for further consideration.) | 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 cl |
