Decisions
This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.


JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeCase NameDate Filed
Show details for Chief Judge Linda R. ReadeChief Judge Linda R. Reade
Show details for Judge Mark W. BennettJudge Mark W. Bennett
Show details for Judge Paul A. ZossJudge Paul A. Zoss
Show details for Judge Jon Stuart ScolesJudge Jon Stuart Scoles
Show details for Judge Donald E. O'BrienJudge Donald E. O'Brien
Show details for Judge Edward J McManusJudge Edward J McManus
Hide details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand
Hide details for CivilCivil
-MERIDIAN MANUFACTURING, INC., vs. C&B MANUFACTURING, INC., d/b/a HITCHDOC Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgment in patent case involving trailers for transporting bulk seed boxes. The court found that the plaintiff established infringement of multiple patent claims as a matter of law. 10/27/2017
-Roeder v. DIRECTV, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgment. Court concluded there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiffs were independent contractors or employees of DIRECTV subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Court also found that neither side had established they were entitled to judgment on application or non-application of the 7(i) exemption of the FLSA.01/13/2017
-Smith v. Smith, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order accepting report and recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims. Plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and failure to train based on his work assignment at a landfill. Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff suffered an objectively serious medical need from his alleged exposure to bio-hazardous material and whether defendants were deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a fact issue on his failure to train claim. Court concluded defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts of each of these claims and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment.09/29/2016
-Zhou v. IBM -- Memorandum opinion and order on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order. The court summarily denied the motion on grounds that it was based on claims and allegations that are not currently encompassed in plaintiff's complaint. The court noted that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate if there is no relationship between the proposed injunction and the claims that are pending in the case.03/11/2016
-Langenbau v. Med-Trans Corp. -- Memorandum opinion and order regarding the parties' evidentiary motions. The court addressed various motions to exclude expert witness opinions at trial and found with some limited exceptions, that the challenged opinions were not subject to exclusion. The court also denied plaintiffs' request for jury view of wreckage and denied a motion to strike a declaration filed in support of defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. . 03/09/2016
-Foster v. Anderson, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the care Foster received while committed to the care and custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections. As such, Court dismissed all claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Foster. 02/29/2016
-Barajas v. USA -- Post remand ruling on Barajas' 28 U.S.C. section 2255 petition. Although Judge O'Brien previously found that petitioner's trial counsel failed to advise petitioner about the collateral consequences of his plea, the Supreme Court decision in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) controls this case. In Chaidez the Supreme Court found that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360 (2010) announced a new rule, and under existing precedent, new rules are not applicable to cases that arose prior to the announcement of the new rule. Thus, because petitioner's case occurred before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Padilla, the petitioner is not entitled to Padilla type relief. Additionally Barajas' argument that Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) should not aply to federal prisoners is not supported by any Eighth Circuit precedent and is denied. Finally, neither Barajas' argument that Judge O'Brien made a secondary holding, or that Barajas received material misrepresentation, are supported by the record in this case and are denied. The petitioner is entilted to a certificate of appealability on the issues of whether Teague v. Lane applies to federal prisoners. 02/29/2016
-Stinton v. Old Republic Insurance Company -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning the payment of uninsured motorist benefits. Court found that Archer Daniels Midland Alliance Nutrition, Inc., the company employing Mr. Stinton at the time of his death, had declined uninsured motorist coverage and as such, Mr. Stinton's estate was not entitled to any payments from the policy. Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of defendant Old Republic Insurance Company and against plaintiff Diane Stinton02/10/2016
-Margaret Foster v. Cerro Gordo County, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, et al. -- Order on the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants had not been deliberately indifferent to Foster's serious medical need. Additionally, Court found defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court delcines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Foster's State law claims against County Defendants due to the failure of Foster to argue the claims should be retained even if the federal claims against County Defendants are dismissed as well as the fact that these claims do not arise from the same facts and circumstances of the federal claims remaining in this case. Court orders all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. secton 1983 against the County Defendants (Cerro Gordo County, Kevin Pals, Shad Stoeffler, Terry Allen-Burns, Justin Faught, Chad Harkema, Rusty Pals, Brenda Crom, Marc Kappmeyer and "Additional Unidentified Cerro Gordo County Jail Staff") dismissed with prejudice. Court orders remaining state law claims alleged against County Defendants dismissed without prejudice. Court orders County Defendants dismissed from this action. 01/28/2016
-Jason Bringus v. Steve Elifrits -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found Bringus failed to exhaust the jail's grievance procedures. Court found Bringus failed to submit any admissible evidence illustrating a material dispute of fact, as such, Court recommends defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.01/20/2016
-Adefris v. Wilson Trailer Company, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found Adefris failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and any claims of retaliatory discharge under Title VII or the ADA. Court found all claims of individual liability under Title VII and the ADA should be dismissed as the acts do not allow inidividual liability. Additionally Court found that Adefris failed to present a plausible claim for relief under race or national origin discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981. Court found Adefris did not state a claim for disability discrimination. Court found the complaint did not state a plausible claim for a hostile work environment. Court recommends all claims be dismissed except for (1) the ADA failure to accommodate claim, as against Wilson and (2) The Section 1981 retaliatory discharge claim, as against Wilson and Kreber. 01/12/2016
-Raveling v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found Raveling failed to discredit defendants' reasons for discharging him. Additionally Court found that Raveling failed to show age motivated defendants' decision to discharge him. Court orders defendants' motion be granted with regard to all claims. 12/21/2015
-Lorenz v. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found Lorenz established facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue as to whether the dismissal was motivated by age animus. Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. 12/03/2015
-Stokes v. Hacker and Anderson -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' unresisted motion for summary judgment. Court found, even when the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as a matter of law. As such, court found no genuine issues of material fact existed as to plaintiff's complaint. Court recommends the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. 11/18/2015
-Hanson v. Hagerty Insurance Agency, LLC and Essentia Insurance Co. -- Order on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend responses to defendants' requests for admissions. Court found that granting plaintiff's motion would allow the case to be heard and decided on its merits. Court found the defendants were unable to demonstrate prejudice following Hanson's failure to respond to requests. Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend responses to defendants' request for admissions. 11/06/2015
-Lynch v. Custom Welding & Repair, et al. -- Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate defendants had violated the FDCPA as a matter of law and as such entered judgment in favor of defendants. Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Court ordered plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied in whole. Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to FDCPA claims and dismissed the remaining state law claims with prejudice. 11/06/2015
-Doss v. McKinney, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found that plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and as such defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. Court additionally found plaintiff failed to show retaliation and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim as well. Court recommended defendants' motion be granted as to both claims and the case be dismissed with prejudice. 11/04/2015
-Peterson v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., et al. -- Order on defendants' motion to compel discovery. Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish the sought after information was protected by the work product doctrine. As such, Court ordered plaintiff to comply with defendants' discovery request. 10/13/2015
-Behr, et al v. AADG, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and court authorized notice. Court granted plaintiffs' request for conditional class certification. Additionally court found the notice unfairly prejudiced AADG as to one part and ordered it be replaced in order to avoid prejudice. Court granted conditional class certification and ordered the notice to be modified. 10/06/2015
-Afshar v. WMG, L.C., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings. Court found that plaintiff's motion was untimely. Court found plaintiff was unable to show good cause for leave to amend the pleadings after the deadline to amend had lapsed. Court alternatively found defendants would be prejudiced by this late stage amendment. Court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings. 09/14/2015
-Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents and information from defendant. Court found that plaintiff had made a showing that it was likely the defendant possessed the requested documents. Court ordered production of any responsive documents in defendant's possession. 08/24/2015
-Hillman v. Wagers, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found defendants have accurately described the applicable law and have properly applied that law to the undisputed material facts. Court found that the record, even if viewed in a light most favorably to the plaintiff, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Court granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered the judgment be entered against plaintiff in favor of defendants. 08/20/2015
-Xcentric Ventures v. Smith -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the defendant, a county prosecutor, has used his authority to retaliate against them for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The court also found that the other factors relevant to the consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction weigh in favor of relief. As such, the court recommended the issuance of a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. 08/19/2015
-Stokes v. Hacker -- Order on defendant's motion to set aside default entry and motion to set aside default judgment. Court determined that good cause existed to set aside the clerk's entry of default due to the blameworthiness of both parties in allowing this default to occur. Court determined that plaintiff was not prejudiced by this delay. Court also found that the motion to set aside default judgment was moot after setting aside the clerk's entry of default. Motion was denied in part and granted in part. 08/17/2015
-Welsh v. Andrews, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact regrding Welsh's excessive force claim. Court also found the use of pepper spray, under the circumstances, was not used maliciously, did not cause the type of injury required for an Eighth Amendment claim and was reasonable. Court concluded Welsh failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing the lawsuit. Court further found prison staff and officials were entitled to qualified immunity and the Iowa Department of Corrections was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Court recommdnded the motion to dismiss be granted with respect to all claims. 06/30/2015
-JTV Manufacturing, Inc. v. Braketown USA, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying third-party defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Court found the forum-selection clause was not reasonably communicated and freely negotiated and therefore, did not become a part of the parties' agreement. Court found the private interest and public interest factors weighed against dismissal and Antil S.p.A. did not demonstrate that the case presented an exceptional circumstance necessary to justify dismissal due to forum non conveniens. Court denied third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. 06/23/2015
-United States v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency -- Order on claimants' motion for attorney fees, costs and interest. Court found claimants were not entitled to attorney fees because claimants did not substantially prevail under CAFRA. Court concluded a voluntary dismissal without prejudice did not entitle claimants to prevailing party status, as there was no material alteration of the parties' legal relationship. Nor were the claimants entitled to reconsideration of the order to dismiss. Court found that the claimants were entitlted to certain court costs pursuant to the court's inherent authority to assess such costs under Section 1920. Claimants' motion was denied in part and granted in part. 05/22/2015
-Bruhn Farms Joint Venture v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material facts relating to plaintiff's breach of contract claim or bad faith claim. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant violated Section 3(c) of the insurance policy's general provisions. Court also found that plaintiff's other alleged breaches of the insurance policy were little more than customer-service related complaints. Court found plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant lacked a reasonable basis for refusing to pay the higher amount plaintiff demanded. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. 05/08/2015
-Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank and Crooked Creek Corp. v. Primebank and Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. -- Report and Recommendation on appeal from a decision and judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Court concluded two questions of statutory construction should be certified to the Iowa Supreme Court for resolution.05/05/2015
-Younie v. City of Hartley, Iowa -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendant's motion to dismiss. Court found there is federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Count I. Court found plaintiff sufficiently plead a claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court also found that there is supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II, III and IV. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. 04/09/2015
-JTV Manufacturing, Inc. v. Braketown USA, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying third-party defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court found Braketown and Ermak have made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction. Antil S.p.A. has sufficient minimal contacts with Iowa that requiring Antil S.p.A. to litigate in Iowa will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Court denied third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. 04/08/2015
-Severe v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff pointed to sufficient evidence to raise genuine issue of material fact on the issue of pretext regarding both plaintiff's age discrimination and FMLA discrimination claims. Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II. Court found Severe conceded that the evidence revealed in discovery does not support a FMLA interference of rights claim. Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count III.03/23/2015
-Parks v. Ariens Company -- Order on defendant's motion for protective order. Court found defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of showing the deposition of Daniel Ariens would cause undue burden. Court found plaintiff provided a sufficient explanation as to why the deposition might result in the discovery of relevant information. Court denied motion for protective order in part and granted in part. 02/25/2015
-Fiore v. Drew, et al -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court concluded Fiore failed to properly exhaust all available administrative remedies by not submitting grievances based on the allegations in his complaint and by not following the correct grievance procedures. Court also concluded Fiore could not create any genuine issues of material fact regardng his allegations of deliberate indifference towards his medical needs, verbal sexual harassment and failure to respond to grievances. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and Fiore's complaint be dismissed with prejudice.02/05/2015
-Shawn Kampfe v. PetSmart, Inc. and Matthew Boos -- Order on plaintiff Shawn Kampfe's motion to quash subpoena and for protective order. Court found Kampfe's employee personnel records, including performance evaluations and disciplinary records from a prior employer were relevant to issues in the case and defendants were entitled to discovery of the employment files. Court further found Kampfe did not meet her burden for a protective order and found the interests of litigants in discovering relevant information outweighed the general privacy interest an employee has in the contents of his or her employment file. Court ordered defendants may serve a subpoena duces tecum for Kampfe's employment files. 01/29/2015
-Richard Trevino v. Woodbury County Jail, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on motion for summary judgment by defendants Woodbury County Jail, Lieutenant Phillips and Carlos LNU. Court concluded Trevino failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies by not submitting grievances to the Jail regarding all his allegations, by not following the Jail's procedures for filing grievances and by not filing any complaints with the Department of Justice. Court also concluded no genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to the elements of Trevino's ADA claim. Court recommended the motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to all Trevino's claims.01/22/2015
-United States of America v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency -- Order on United States of America's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Court found that USA had a valid reason for seeking dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and that there was no indication that USA is engaged in forum shopping. Court further found that granting USA's motion would not waste judicial resources and would not cause prejudice to claimants. Court ordered the action be dismissed without prejudice.01/09/2015
-Richard Trevino v. Woodbury County Jail, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on United States Marshals Service's Motion to Dismiss. Court concluded Trevino's action alleging the United States Marshals Service violated his constitutional rights and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act was not frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Court further concluded Trevino's claims against the United States Marshals Service were barred by sovereign immunity. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be granted and all claims asserted against the United States Marshals Service in this action be dismissed with prejudice. 01/07/2015
-Wells, et al. v. Lamplight Farms, Inc., et al. -- Order on defendant's motion to quash a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Court found plaintiffs were not entitled to depose witnesses or seek additional information to support new expert opinions after the expert witness disclosure deadline passed. Court also found plaintiffs could not seek the additional information for other, non-expert reasons because plaintiffs failed to discuss those other, non-expert reasons in meet-and-confer discussions with opposing counsel. Court granted defendant's motion to quash the deposition notice.12/18/2014
-Halstead v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on respondent James McKinney's motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court concluded petitioner did not exhaust the grounds in his petition in the Iowa state courts prior to filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Court further concluded petitioner's grounds are now procedurally defaulted. Therefore, petitioner lacks a cognizable legal theory in his petition for writ of habeas corpous. Court recommended respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. 11/12/2014
-Smith v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court found the Iowa Courts identified Strickland as the correct governing law and reasonably applied Strickland to petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to advise petitioner if he pled guilty, he would be sentenced to a mandatory lifetime term of parole. Court concluded the Iowa Courts' finding that counsel's failure was deficient, however, petitioner, failed to show prejudice was reasonable. Court recommended the petition be denied. 11/12/2014
-Life Insurance Company of North America v. Erasmo Eufracio, Charlene Baas and Ronald Baas -- Report and Recommendation on defendants Charlene and Ronald Baas' motion for sanctions. Court recommended the motion be granted due to defendant Eufracio's inaction in the case and violations of procedural rules. Defendant Eufracio failed to appear at the final pretrial conference, did not serve any witness or exhibit lists, and failed to participate in the preparation of the proposed final pretrial order. 11/04/2014
-John Denton Myers v. Hog Slat, Inc. -- Order on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Court granted in part defendant Hog Slat, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on Count III (violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act) and Count V (breach of contract). Court denied in part defendant's motion on Count I (associational discrmination in violation of the ADA) and Count II (interference with employee benefits in violation of ERISA). Court found genuine issues of material fact existed as to the issues of casual connection and pretext. Court entered judgment accordingly for each count. 10/24/2014
-Nunley v. Erdmann, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Section 1983. Court recommended the motion be granted with regard to any and all claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's minor child without prejudice. Court also recommended the motion be granted with regard to all claims asserted against the Iowa State Patrol, all plaintiff's state law tort claims and Counts IV, VI and VII with prejudice. Court recommended the motion be granted with regard to Counts I, II and V unless plaintiff is able, by amendment, to cure the pleading deficiencies. 10/08/2014
-Katrina West v. Abendroth & Russell Law Firm -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Abendroth & Russell's motion for summary judgment with regard to all counts. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the alleged FDCPA violation. Court also found no genuine issue of material fact existed on plaintiff Katrina West's state law claims. Court entered judgment for defendant and against plaintiff. 09/16/2014
-Nathan A. Martin v. Champion Ford, Inc. -- Order on cross motions for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Champion Ford, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nathan A. Martin's motion for summary judgment. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to hostile work environment or race discrimination by defendant Champion Ford, Inc. Court entered judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.08/28/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC -- Order on defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with court order and motion to compel Everest Reinsurance Company to comply with subpoena. Court granted in part motion to compel plaintiff's compliance and directed plaintiff to provide unredacted reinsurance documents. Court denied in part motion to compel plaintiff to produce certain electronically stored information. Court granted in part motion to compel Everest's compliance and directed Everest to produce documents responsive to the subpoena.08/22/2014
-Wells v. Lamplight Farms, Inc, et al. -- Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and discovery of health records. Court granted in part motion to compel and directed plaintiff to supplement their answers to interrogatories. Court denied in part motion to compel discovery of health records.08/15/2014
-Foster v. Cerro Gordo County, et al. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint. Court found that existing defendants had not demonstrated that amendment naming previously unidentified defendants was futile based on a statute of limitations defense and alleged failure to relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C).07/25/2014
-Hearing v. Minnesota Life v. Holloway -- Order granting defendant's motion to deposit interpleader funds and plaintiff's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment on third-party defendant's counterclaim. Court found Minnesota Life was entitled to deposit funds with the court, recover attorney fees and costs and be dismissed with prejudice as the facts demonstrated it had a real and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability. However, third-party defendant's counterclaim ultimately could not survive summary judgment because the insured had not done all he could to comply with the policy requirements for changing a beneficiary and there were no facts suggesting unconscionable conduct to justify imposing a constructive trust. As such, plaintiff was entitled to policy proceeds. 07/21/2014
-Wilkins v. Ludwick -- Order on pending motions and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motions to add a supplemental claim and expand the record because supplemental claim was barred by statute of limitations. As to the petition, court found Iowa Supreme Court did not identify Strickland as the correct governing law for petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to use of the nickname "O.J." at trial. In conducting de novo review, court found petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland. Court found that Iowa Court of Appeals decision on other ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate a witness and call him at trial did not result in an unreasonable application of federal law. Court recommended the petition be denied. 07/21/2014
-Goettsch et al v. Goettsch et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' jury demand pursuant to Rule 39(a)(2). Court found defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on Count One in which plaintiffs alleged oppressive conduct and sought judicial dissolution of the corporation or a mandatory buyout of their stock. Court found defendants were entitled to a jury trial on Count Two in which plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty and sought compensatory damages. Court rejected defendants' arguments that affirmative defense of breach of contract and "common issues" entitled them to a jury trial on all claims. 07/08/2014
-GLCC v. AT&T Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on GLCC's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be denied based on GLCC's standing argument and with regard to Count I of AT&T's counterclaim. Court recommended the motion be granted as to Counts II and III of AT&T's counterclaim pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine. As for GLCC's motion for summary judgment on the issue of AT&T's liability, the court recommended the motion be denied as GLCC had not demonstrated it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.06/24/2014
-DIRECTV v. Klingenberg, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment by default against defendant Last Call Saloon, LLC. Court found it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and plaintiff had demonstrated that Last Call Saloon was liable under 47 U.S.C. 605(a). Court recommended the motion be granted and judgment be entered against Last Call for basic statutory damages, enhanced damages and costs and attorney fees.06/20/2014
-Life Insurance Company of North America v. Baas, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's application to recover costs and attorney fees in interpleader action. Court concluded plaintiff was only entitled to recover $1000 for attorney fees and expenses related to locating and serving defendant in Mexico. Plaintiff was also entitled to recover full amount of attorney fees related to legal research and drafting pleadings, motions and briefs. Court found plaintiff was not entitled to recover local counsel expenses or filing and mailing fees as plaintiff had not provided the appropriate documentation.06/17/2014
-Celia v. North Central Correctional Faciltiy, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in the treatment and timing of treatment for his ankle injury. In addition, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.06/13/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying defendant's motion to amend answer to add affirmative defense of "after-acquired evidence." Court found proposed defense was purely anticipatory because the City had not yet decided to discharge Scott, and in any event, the defense would not apply because the evidence of misconduct was discovered prior to any termination. Court concluded the proposed defense was "legally insufficient" pursuant to Rule 12(f) and futile for purposes of Rule 15(a).06/04/2014
-Langdeaux v. Lund -- Order on motion to expand the record and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motion to expand the record under 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2). As to the petition, court found Iowa Court of Appeals decision did not result in any unreasonable application of federal law when it concluded the petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsels' failure to advise him about the felony-murder rule in the context of whether to accept the state's plea offer. Court also found Iowa Court of Appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsels' decision not to call the sheriff as a witness or conduct further investigation based on his statement did not amount to deficient performance. Court recommended the petition be denied. 05/20/2014
-Rasmussen v. Hacker, et al -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff's health and disregarded it. Defendant McKinney also could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and both defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. 05/07/2014
-Urban v. Sells, et al. -- Report and Recommendation for entry of order dismissing action with prejudice and imposing monetary sanctions on plaintiff. Court found dismissal was appropriate because allegations were totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discussion. Judgment had been entered against plaintiff four times on claims arising out of some or all of the same events alleged in current complaint and new claims were barred by doctrines of res judicata, prosecutorial immunity, Rooker-Feldman, the Eleventh Amendment, statute of limitations and Rule 12(b)(6). After giving plaintff the opportunity to show cause, the court also recommended imposing monetary sanctions under Rule 11. Plaintiff filed sixth federal lawsuit despite the court having explained the law, advised him of his right to appeal, cautioned him that filing frivolous repetitive lawsuits would result in sanctions and told him what the likely amount of those sanctions would be.04/25/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et all. -- Order granting defendants' motion for order directing destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document. Court found that no waiver occurred as a result of the inadvertent disclosure because defendants' attorney took reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure and acted quickly to seek relief upon discovering the error. Plaintiff also would not be unfairly prejudiced by the requested relief. Plaintiff was directed to destroy all copies of the privileged communication.04/25/2014
-FDIC v. Dosland, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to compel discovery. Court found that FDIC-R had not met its burden of demonstrating internal OTS documents at issue were so plainly irrelevant that they were not discoverable. Court also found that under 12.U.S.C. Section 1821(o), FDIC-R had the legal right to obtain the documents meaning they were within it's "possession, custody, or control" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).04/04/2014
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff could not point to evidence that defendant knew of plaintiff's alleged disability for his disability discrimination claim. With regard to his race discrimination claim, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff failed to meet his employer's legitimate expectations and employees who committed similar violations as plaintiff were treated the same, regardless of race. Plaintiff was also not entitled to relief under FMLA because he was not employed by the defendant for at least 12 months.04/01/2014
- Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Court found that plaintiff had not met the "good cause" requirement under Rule 16(b) to add a party several months after the deadline. Plaintiff had sufficient information about the proposed party to be put on inquiry notice several months before the deadline. Plaintiff did not follow up on this information before the deadline and did not act promptly when she received an unambiguous answer concerning the proposed party's role in the corporate organization. Court found plaintiff had failed to show that despite diligence, her proposed amendment could not reasonably have been offered sooner.03/26/2014
-Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Agency One Insurance, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Agency One. Court found there were genuine issues of material fact on plaintiff's claim of negligence, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. 03/25/2014
-Meighan v. TransGuard Insurance Company of America, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to compel responses to discovery. Court found that defendant must produce some documents where work product privilege did not apply because the documents were not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Court found work product privilege and attorney client privilege applied to all other documents.03/24/2014
-Wells, et al. v. Lamplight Farms, Inc., et al. - Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to quash or modify a subpoena and motion for protective order. Court granted motion to quash or modify subpoena and directed recipient to comply to the extent that the requested information related to the product at issue. Court also granted motion for protective order and directed defendants to submit a proposed protective order consistent with the terms described by the court.03/12/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al -- Order on defendant's motion to compel production of documents from privilege logs and motion to compel discovery. Court directed plaintiff to serve a supplemental privilege log providing more information concerning 14 disputed documents. Court also found defendant was entitled to production of documents concerning other similar claims, reinsurance information and document retention policies. Court denied defendant's request for production of reserve information and regulatory filings in states other than Iowa. 03/10/2014
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al -- Order on defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline for their expert witness disclosures. Court found that plaintiffs barely demonstrated good cause to extend their expert witness disclosure deadline and because the scheduling order could be amended without causing unfair prejudice, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline and denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' disclosure of expert witnesses without prejudice.03/04/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to file fourth amended complaint. Court allowed plaintiff to add new allegation of defamation against a particular defendant, but denied amendments to add new factual allegations in support of plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and a new claim of intentional interference with employment contract as plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for these untimely amendments.02/25/2014
-John and Dave LLC v. Society Insurance -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. Court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintif's claim of unjust enrichment, reasonable expectations, bad faith and punitive damages, but denied summary judgment on plaintif's breach of contract claim as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional payments under the Policy. Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply, but disregarded the improper new arguments made therein.02/21/2014
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc. et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and for protective order. Court found that defendants were entitled to discover disciplinary reports from subsequent employers but not former employers. Court also found defendants were entitled to obtain performance evaluations from plaintiff's employers dating back to January 1, 2007. As for plaintiff's current employer, court found plaintiff could either obtain her entire personnel file herself and produce it in its entirety to defendants or defendants could enforce the subpoena.02/20/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to take more than ten depositions. Court found that plaintiff made a "particularized showing" why additional depositions were necessary and that none of the factors listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) were present to justify limiting discovery. Court granted leave, pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2), for plaintiff to conduct the additional proposed depositions.02/11/2014
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary deficiency judgment against defendants. Court found plaintiff was entitled to deduct attorney's fees from the sale price of the West Street property, but that the total amount of attorney's fees should be reduced based on the scope of services and hourly rate. Court recommended a preliminary deficiency judgment be entered pursuant to the order enforcing the parties' settlement agreement, but that entry of final judgment be deferred until it was determined whether the amount should be adjusted to reflect any income tax liability from the sale of the property.01/31/2014
-Sanders v. McKinney, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Sander's health and disrgarded it. Alternatively, defendants were entitled to a qualified immunity and there was insufficient factual evidence to support Sander's claim against certain defendants. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.12/17/2013
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion regarding sequencing of discovery. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for withholding audio recordings from defendants until certain witnesses had been deposed. Plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested audio recordings without further delay. 12/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Count found that plaintiff's motion was timely and defendant had not demonstrated undue delay, undue prejudice, harassment, bad faith or futility of claims that would justify denial of the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Court also rejected defendant's argument that the motion should be denied because some of the proposed claims were being pursued in Maryland state court. 12/04/2013
-Catipovic v. Turley, et al -- Order denying plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to amend his complaint. Court found that plaintiff had failed to show good cause for his untimely amendment under FRCP 16(b). Alternatively, his amendment would not be allowed under Rule 15(a) because the proposed new fraud claim was futile and adding the claim at such a late stage in the case would be unduly prejudicial to all defendants.11/20/2013
-Huerta-Orosco v. Cosgrove -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Court found plaintiff had filed his motion to amend within the time allowed by the court's scheduling order and defendant would not suffer undue prejudice by allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint at this time. While defendant raised valid statute of limitations arguments, the outcome was not so apparent based on the limited information in the record that plaintiff's claims in the new complaint could be considered futile. 10/30/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment where plaintiff alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Court found defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' conduct imposed a substantial burden on his religious beliefs. Alternatively, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show that a reasonable officer would have had notice that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.10/28/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Court found plaintiff had not demonstrated a relationship between the injury described in the application and the events alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the court recommended plaintiff's application be denied.10/23/2013
-Velazquez-Ramirez v. Fayram -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court found Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland's prejudice prong to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion for change of venue and investigate prejudice in the jury pool and failure to raise issue of compliance with the Vienna Convention. However, under de novo review the court found petitioner was unable to demonstrate prejudice. Court found Iowa Court of appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsel's alleged failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support first-degree murder did not amount to deficient performance. Finally, court found claim of ineffective assistance for failure to file a motion to suppress based on Miranda violation was procedurally barred. Court recommended petition be denied.10/23/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motions for discovery sanctions and contempt sanctions. Court found witness and attorneys had violated rules of civil procedure and court's previous order outlining appropriate deposition procedures by refusing to answer questions or instructing the witness not to answer questions on certain topics based on relevance. Court imposed sanctions on witness and attorneys and denied motions for contempt sanctions.10/09/2013
-Graney, et al v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for other sanctions. Court found dismissal was warranted based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with multiple court orders including discovery orders, which repeatedly advised plaintiffs of their obligations and that failure to comply could result in dismissal of their case. Court found that plaintiffs' total lack of action was willful and had prejudiced defendant. Court recommended the case be dismissed with prejudice.09/18/2013
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying the City of Sioux City's motion to bifurcate claims and stay discovery and trial. Court found that it was too early in the case to determine if bifurcation was apporpriate and plaintiff was entitled to conduct discovery with regard to all claims at this point.09/13/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to show good cause for seeking leave to file a fourth amended complaint six months after the deadline. Court also found defendants would be unfairly prejudiced by a fourth amended complaint that sought to add new claims, reinstate a dismissed claim and add new parties at this stage of the case. 09/09/2013
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc,. et al. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Tur-Pak Foods, Inc. Court found that Tur-Pak was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff was not an employee of Tur-Pak. Even if he could be considered an employee, the court found his claims would still fail as a matter of law because he had not established a prima facie case for his discrimination claims or that he was "eligible employee" for his FMLA claim.09/06/2013
-Jason Martin and Amber Martin v. Apex Tool Group, LLC -- Order denying defendant's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert's opinions and motion for summary judgment. Court found that plaintiffs' expert's opinions should not be excluded because his findings were based on recognized methods and were relevant and likely to aid the jury. Court also concluded that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment regardless of whether the plaintiffs' expert's opinions were excluded because viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support their claim.08/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motions to compel discovery concerning five interrogatories and ten document requests. 08/01/2013
-Clay v. Woodbury County, et al - Order denying plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena and discovery deposition of her treating psychiatrist. Court found that the patient-litigant exception applied because the plaintiff asserted a claim based on emotional injry and she could not undo the exception by withdrawing only part of that claim. In the alternative, the court found plaintiff had waived the physician-patient privilege by voluntarily providing copies of her records, signing a waiver that allowed defendants to obtain her records and testifying about her treatment with the psychiatrist.07/17/2013
-Mapleton Processing, Inc. v. Society Insurance Company -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion to compel appraisal. Court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's violation of a condition precedent caused prejudice to defendant, allowing its breach of contract claim to proceed to trial. Plaintiff's other claims of bad faith and punitive damages failed as a matter of law. Court denied plaintiff's moton to compel appraisal, finding that although plaintiff had a contractual right to appraisal, it had waived that right through various decision and actions. 07/10/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to comply with court's discovery order. Court found that defendant failed to produce requried documents by the deadline set forth in the discovery order and qualified its supplemental responses against the court's instructions. Court ordered a monetary sanction and prohibited defendant from offering certain documents into evidence. 07/09/2013
-Peters v. Woodbury County, et al and Clay v. Woodbury County, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate cases. Court found that although cases demonstrate common questions of law, there are no common issues of fact which could create a serious risk of prejudice to defendants. Additionally, the burden on parties, witnesses and resources outweighed any benefits of consolidation.06/24/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and her state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment Court found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether probable cause existed at the time of her arrest, whether she was arrested pursuant to an official governmental policy and whether individual defendants knowingly made a false statement to law enforcement, instigated her arrest or acted with malice.06/24/2013
-Van Stelton v. Van Stelton -- Order on defendants' motions to strike plaintiffs' disclosures of expert witnesses. Court granted motions based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C) after the court warned plaintiffs they may not have been in compliance, directed them to the rule, and gave them extra time to comply. Because plaintiffs still failed to comply with the rule and did not demonstrate that noncompliance was harmless or substantially justifiable, the court ruled that exclusion of expert opinion testimony was the appropriate sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).06/03/2013
-Harrington v. Holder -- Report and Recommendation granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging defendant had violated his constitutional rights by disclosing a complaint he had written about two other inmates which led to an assault by a third inmate. Court found that plaintiff had not produced evidence showing that defendant knew of a risk to plaintiff and failed to take action to protect him. Court also found that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. 04/12/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order denying defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiff's summary judgment appendix. Court concluded that transcripts of unsworn recorded interviews were properly authenticated by plaintiff and included in the summary judgment record. 04/02/2013
-Boss v. Ludwick -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's advice to disclose the location of the deceased's body and allegedly-inadequate consultation by his attorney prior to Boss giving consent. In recommending the petition be denied, the court found the petitioner failed to show that the Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in concluding counsel's representation did not amount to deficient performance.02/19/2013
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order granting defendant's motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Court found defendant's appeal to the Eighth Circuit divested the court of jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, and even if it did not, the case should be stayed in the interests of justice and judicial economy.01/31/2013
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement. The court found the parties agreed upon a settlement in which plaintiff is entitled to payment in the amount of $262,500. The parties agreed that plaintiff must be given a deed to the West Street property so that she may sell it and apply the net sale proceeds towards the settlement amount. They also agreed that defendants would be entitled to any proceeds in excess of $262,500, but that they would be liable for any deficiency.01/09/2013
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al -- Order granting St. Luke's Regional Medical Center's motion to quash a subpoena issued by defendants based on the peer review privilege because Hagen's professional competence is not at issue and the privilege extends to credentialing documents as held by the Iowa Court of Appeals in Day v. The Finley Hospital.12/07/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al -- Order on defendants' and plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment. Court granted defendants' motion in part dismissing the claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy and promissory estoppel against UCHC and the claims of tortious interference with employment contract and fraud against the individualdefendants. Defendants' motion was denied as to their argument that plaintiff's alleged damages relating to the sale and maintenance of her home should be stricken. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim was denied.12/05/2012
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for extension of scheduling order as to Rule 26(f) meeting and plaintiffs' initial disclosure under FRCP 26(a) and renewed request for scheduling conference under FRCP 16(b). Court found that the motion to amend was timely and defendants did not demonstrate futility or other available grounds to deny the motion. The parties were directed to prepare a new proposed scheduling order and discovery plan and necessity of 16(b) conference would be determined at a later date.11/09/2012
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order denying defendant's motion to stay case in favor of arbitration and denying plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration proceedings. Olympic, as a nonsignatory, was unable to bind Wells to arbitration based on its agreements with another company, Marina, through alternative estoppel. Wells was not entitled to stay the arbitration proceeding brought by Olympic and Marina because it had agreed to let the arbitrator determine arbitrability and Marina and its breach of contract claim were not a part of Wells' civil action.10/22/2012
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Defendants failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order due to lead counsel leaving law firm when three other attorneys from the same firm had entered appearances and did not specify what additional discovery was necessary.10/12/2012
-Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entertainment, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to quash subpoena and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and defendants' motion for protective order relating to the scope of permissible jurisdictional discovery concerning the defendants' websites and their contacts in Iowa. Defendants must generate Google Analytics reports formatted as HTML pages or as otherwise agreed that reveal the number of visits to defendants' websites from Iowa-based IP addresses. The websites are limited to only those owned by defendants nd not by their subsidiaries and the time period is limited to visits since January 1, 2009.09/28/2012
-Escobedo v. Lund -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to move for a mistrial when a juror was substituted during deliberations. In recommending the petition be denied, the Court found the petitioner fialed to show that the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.09/06/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Plaintiff failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order. In particular, she failed to demonstrate diligence in attempting to schedule the deposition she now seeks to take after the close of discovery.08/20/2012
-Dorrah v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to conduct limited discovery while its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jursidiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is pending. The court had previously granted plaintiff leave to conduct limited discovery to gather facts that may be relevant to defendant's argument concerning subject matter jurisdiction. The court now determines that defendant, too, may conduct limited written discovery but may not depose plaintiff at this stage of the case.07/31/2012
-French v. Cummins Filtration, Inc. -- Order denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a new claim. The motion was filed long after the deadline for amendments to pleadings and after the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the only existing claim. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for the untimely amendment as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).07/19/2012
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al. -- Order denying defendant FDIC's motion for early discovery, finding that a request for discovery materials needed to defend an anticipated (but not yet filed) motion for summary judgment was not good cause for early discovery and defendant's concerns could adequately be addressed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).07/11/2012
-Jackson v. Green -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged his employment was terminated unlawfully on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his complaints. The court held that the summary judgment record contained no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with regard to either claim. Plaintiff failed to show the defendants' proferred non-discriminatory reason for termination was false or that his termination was motivated by discrimination or retaliation.06/26/2012
Show details for CriminalCriminal
Show details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases