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.


CategoryCase NameDate Filed
Show details for B - BankruptcyB - Bankruptcy
Show details for COM/CON - Commercial/Contract LitigationCOM/CON - Commercial/Contract Litigation
Show details for CONLAW/FEDJUR - Constitutional Law/Federal Courts/Federal JurisdictionCONLAW/FEDJUR - Constitutional Law/Federal Courts/Federal Jurisdiction
Show details for CR - Civil RightsCR - Civil Rights
Show details for CRIM - Criminal Law and ProcedureCRIM - Criminal Law and Procedure
Show details for EMP - Employment LawEMP - Employment Law
Show details for ENV/PUBHEALTH - Environmental Law/Public Health/Safety LawENV/PUBHEALTH - Environmental Law/Public Health/Safety Law
Show details for IP - Intellectual PropertyIP - Intellectual Property
Show details for MED/SS - Medicare/Social Security/Similiar ProgramsMED/SS - Medicare/Social Security/Similiar Programs
Show details for OtherOther
Show details for POSTPRO - Post-trial ProcedurePOSTPRO - Post-trial Procedure
Show details for PREPRO/DISC/EVID - Pre-trial Procedure/Discovery/EvidencePREPRO/DISC/EVID - Pre-trial Procedure/Discovery/Evidence
Show details for PRIS - Prisoners' Rights and Post-Conviction ReliefPRIS - Prisoners' Rights and Post-Conviction Relief
Show details for ProcedureProcedure
Show details for STAT - Statutory InterpretationSTAT - Statutory Interpretation
Hide details for TORTS - Torts (Non-commercial)TORTS - Torts (Non-commercial)
Goodman v. Performance Contractors, Inc.(The plaintiff brought a defamation claim against a former co-worker for statements made only to their former employer; co-worker’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the ground that there was no “publication” of the allegedly defamatory statements: The question of whether a statement of a co-worker only to the employer is “published” for purposes of a defamation claim is either settled against the co-worker by a decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals or, at the very least, remains an unsettled question of Iowa law, because the Iowa Supreme Court has not addressed it, so that the co-worker was not entitled to dismissal for failure to assert a cognizable claim of defamation based on lack of publication; the plaintiff alleged defamation per se, so that he was not required to prove, or to plead a plausible factual basis for, damages, falsity, and malice.) 04/11/2018Mark W. Bennett
Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y (A magistrate judge recommended an executor’s claims on behalf of his father’s estate against a care facility be compelled to arbitration and all proceedings, including those on the executor’s individual claim of loss of parental consortium, be stayed; executor objected only to the stay of his individual claims: on de novo review of the part of the recommendation to which the executor objected, the court distinguished between a “mandatory” and a “discretionary” stay pending arbitration and rejected a stay of the executor’s individual claim, because the arbitration of the estate’s claims would have no binding effect on the executor’s individual claim and a stay unduly prejudiced the executor’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on his individual claim.)04/10/2018Mark W. Bennett
Gosch v. Sergeant Bluff-Luton Cmty. Sch. Dist. (action by parents of disabled child against teacher, principal, and school district asserting civil rights, disability discrimination, and tort claims: Plaintiff’s motion for new trial on unconstitutional seizure and negligence claims against teacher: challenge to sufficiency of the evidence denied, because, although the evidence was very close such that a verdict for either side would have been reasonable for a jury to reach, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the verdict was not against the greater weight of the evidence; challenged remarks by defense counsel were either not improper or, if improper, were no more than minor aberrations made in passing that did not distort the weight of the evidence enough to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial; defense claims or contentions that were allegedly first raised at trial were not surprises amounting to a major variance in the defendants’ defense warranting a new trial)11/29/2017Mark W. Bennett
Spanier v. American Pop Corn Company, et al. (Diversity products liability action, motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that because two of the defendant maintained registered agents for service of process in Iowa, they had consented to jurisdiction in Iowa and all reside in Iowa for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), also applying five factor test, the court concludes that it has specific personal jurisdiction over defendants who were bulk suppliers of butter flavoring to Iowa popcorn plants and, consequently, defendants’ actions in Iowa allegedly resulted in dangerous popcorn products being manufactured in Iowa which harmed plaintiffs, and defendants had not established that another manufacturer of butter flavoring was an indispensable party to this lawsuit.)04/14/2016Mark W. Bennett
Mary E. Roth and Michael A. Roth, Individually and as Co-Executors of the Estate of Cletus Roth, et al. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (Motion by nursing home to compel arbitration of claims of decedent’s estate and decedent’s adult children for loss of consortium: effect of arbitration provision submitting “arbitrability” and other “threshhold” questions to the arbitrator; certification to the Iowa Supreme Court of questions concerning the effect of Iowa Code § 613.15 on whether the loss of consortium claims must be brought by the estate and arbitrated or whether the circumstances made it impossible, impracticable, or not in the best interest of the adult children for the estate to bring the consortium claims, such that the consortium claims should not be arbitrated)12/04/2015Mark W. Bennett
Starbuck v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al (Smoker brought product liability and fraud claims against tobacco companies for damages from lung cancer, as an individual claim in the wake of decertification of a class in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d (Fla. 2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 941 (2007); smoker’s motion for new trial: whether jury foreperson’s consultation of dictionary definitions of “addiction” tainted the verdict; whether the jury’s threshold determination that he was not addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine was against the great weight of the evidence; and whether a jury instruction imposing a temporal limitation on when the smoker was addicted was confusing and prejudicial)05/04/2015Mark W. Bennett
Stults v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. & Bush Boake Allen, Inc. (products liability action, seeking damages for a lung injury to a consumer of microwave popcorn allegedly caused by diacetyl in the popcorn’s butter flavoring; post-trial motions after defense verdict: motion for new trial based on allowing jurors to hear two defense experts’ testimony before their testimony was excluded in whole or in part, and admission of another expert’s testimony over Daubert objections; motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the defendants’ specific defenses and on certain elements or parts of elements of the plaintiffs’ “breach of implied warranty” claim)10/23/2014Mark W. Bennett
David & Barbara Stults v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. and Bush Boake Allen, Inc. (Diversity products liability action, motions for summary judgment; analyzing plaintiffs’ failure to warn, implied warranty, and design defect negligence claims; rejecting defendants’ argument that plaintiffs could not establish proximate cause for their failure to warn claim, concluding that, given the circumstances of the case, questions of proximate cause were for the jury to determine; concluding that plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claims did not merge with their design defect negligence claims; and denying summary judgment on plaintiffs’ design defect negligence claim because the materials submitted by plaintiffs was sufficient for a jury to conclude that a reasonable alternative design was available to defendants’ butter flavorings with diacetyl.) 07/11/2014Mark W. Bennett
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, PC, et al. (Post-trial order denying defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and denying plaintiff’s motion for an additur, but granting plaintiff’s motion for pre- and post-judgment interest; issues include what activities are “protected activities” supporting the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, additur, and judgment interest) 05/30/2014Mark W. Bennett
Stults v. American Popcorn, et al (Diversity products liability action, motion to reconsider, in part, motion for summary judgment; analyzing whether under Michigan law, a statutory discovery rule found in Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.5833 applies to plaintiffs’ implied warranty claims, and whether plaintiffs implied warranty claims were timely filed under that statute.)02/25/2014Mark W. Bennett
Stults v. American Pop Corn, et al (Diversity products liability action, motions for summary judgment; analyzing which state's substantive law should apply—the law of Michigan, where plaintiffs reside and where plaintiffs purchased, and consumed product giving rise to this case, or the law of Iowa, the state where some of the product was produced and packaged; dismissing plaintiffs’ strict liability claims because Michigan does not recognize strict liability as a theory of recovery in products liability cases; analyzing which state's statute of limitations should apply—the law of Iowa, the forum state, or the law of Michigan, the state found to have the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence; dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of implied warranty claims as time barred under Michigan law, and dismissing loss of consortium claim as a matter of law because it is entirely derivative.) 12/24/2013Mark W. Bennett
Graney v. Mercy Health Services - Iowa Corp. (Action for wrongful death, loss of parental consortium, and failure to provide an appropriate medical screening examination of the plaintiff’s sixteen-year-old son, resulting in his death from probable cardiac arrhythmia; report and recommendation of magistrate judge recommending dismiss as sanction for failure to comply with discovery and other orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 41(b))10/23/2013Mark W. Bennett
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al. (Post-trial order certifying questions to the Iowa Supreme Court in a wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy case; three questions certified: (1) whether Iowa’s public policy protects a doctor from being fired for (a) reporting nurses’ malpractice to a hospital, (b) disclosing malpractice to a patient’s family, or (c) consulting with an attorney about whether to report another doctor’s malpractice to the board of medicine; (2) whether contractual employees can sue for wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy; and (3) whether an employer’s lack of an “overriding business justification” for firing an employee an independent element of a wrongful discharge claim)08/29/2013Mark W. Bennett
Dennis & Melissa Eggerling v. Advanced Bionics, LLC) (Diversity action by parents of minor child who received a cochlear implant alleging negligence and product defect claims against manufacturer; manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) preempted the plaintiffs’ claims: rejection of plaintiffs’ assertions of issue preclusion and a requirement of “approval” of the device as a prerequisite to preemption; determination of which and to what extent negligence and product liability claims concerning design, manufacturing, and testing, based on non-compliance with the pre-market approval (PMA) for the device and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) were preempted or were viable “parallel” claims) 07/24/2013Mark W. Bennett
Virgil Van Stelton, et al v. Jerry Van Stelton, et al. (Federal civil rights litigation, motions to dismiss concerning claims brought civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.; and pendent state law claims for false arrest, fraud, malicious prosecution, slander and libel, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) concerning whether plaintiffs’ sufficiently pled claims for civil rights violations under § 1983; RICO, First Amendment right to petition, slander and libel, tortious interference with prospective business relations claim, Ongoing Criminal Conduct violation, false arrest, malicious prosecution, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty.)07/17/2013Mark W. Bennett
The Secuirty National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, as Conservator for JMK, a Minor v. Abbott Laboratories (Diversity action by conservator of infant who suffered brain damage from bacterial meningitis asserting product defect, warranty, and fraud claims against the manufacturer of powdered infant formula (PIF) that allegedly caused the infant’s injuries; the manufacturer’s motion to exclude “sham” affidavit by the infant’s mother concerning onset and progression of the infant’s symptoms as contrary to the mother’s and the grandmother’s depositions and medical records; the manufacturer’s Daubert motion to exclude testimony of the conservator’s “causation” experts based on flawed “ruling in” and “ruling out” methodologies to establish that the PIF was the most likely cause of the infant’s bacterial infection; and the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on all claims for inability to establish causation of the infant’s injuries by the manufacturer’s PIF, for summary judgment on warranty claims for inability to show a “sale” of the PIF to the hospital, which provided the PIF in a “gift bag” to the infant’s mother, for summary judgment on the fraud claim for inability to show “actual reliance” by the mother on alleged misrepresentations on the PIF label, and for summary judgment on the warning defect claim for inability to show “factual causation” where warnings on the label allegedly played no part in the mother’s decision to use the PIF, but the mother asserts that she would not have used the PIF if adequate warnings had been given) 06/03/2013Mark W. Bennett
The Estate of Scott W. Thompson, et al. v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, LTD, et al. (Diversity action under Iowa products liability law, arising from a motorcycle accident, involving a “design defect” claim against the motorcycle manufacturer; manufacturer’s motion to reconsider or clarify the scope of evidence and argument that the manufacturer may offer to show that an alleged “design defect” in the motorcycle was not a cause of the plaintiff’s death almost three years after the accident) 03/11/2013Mark W. Bennett
The Estate of Scott W. Thompson, et al. v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, LTD, et al.(Diversity action under Iowa products liability law, arising from a motorcycle accident, involving a “design defect” claim against the motorcycle manufacturer; manufacturer’s challenges to plaintiffs’ use in their case-in-chief of deposition testimony of manufacturer’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative and deposition testimony of a former defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative; plaintiffs’ motion to exclude litigation testing evidence, described by the manufacturer as “demonstrative” exhibits) 03/11/2013Mark W. Bennett
Deborah & Steven Daughetee v. CHR. Hansen, et al. (Diversity products liability action, motions for summary judgment; analyzing whether: defendants had a duty to warn plaintiff about the harms allegedly associated with exposure to their products; General Mills and ConAgra were “sophisticated” intermediary users of defendants’ products and thus defendants were entitled to rely on General Mills and ConAgra to provide appropriate warnings to consumers; defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s failure to warn claims on the ground that defendants were bulk suppliers of butter flavorings to General Mills and ConAgra; plaintiff could establish that defendants’ failure to warn plaintiff was the proximate cause of her lung condition; plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claims are redundant to her negligent claims; plaintiff has offered no proof of a product defect sufficient to sustain a breach of implied warranty claim; a breach of warranty claim based on a breach that occurred after February 2000 would have a causal relationship to plaintiff’s her alleged diagnosis; any claim based on plaintiff’s exposure to one of the defendants’ products was barred under Iowa’s statute of repose, Iowa Code § 614.1; and plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages fail as a matter of law because no evidence exists that defendant willfully and wantonly disregarded plaintiff’s safety.)03/06/2013Mark W. Bennett
The Estate of Scott W. Thompson, et al. v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd, et al. (Diversity action under Iowa products liability law, arising from a motorcycle accident, involving a “design defect” claim against the motorcycle manufacturer; manufacturer’s pretrial motions: motion to exclude hearsay testimony of a person traveling with the victim at the time of the accident, but who did not see the accident, motion to exclude hearsay statements of the victim’s father, motion to bifurcate liability and punitive damages phases of the trial, motion to exclude evidence of “similar incidents,” and motion to exclude causation opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert; plaintiffs’ pretrial motion to exclude the following evidence: evidence of an alleged lack of “similar incidents”; evidence that the victim caused his own death or that he failed to mitigate his damages; evidence of alleged alcohol use by the victim; evidence of opinions of emergency responders; evidence of the posted 55 mph speed limit and that the victim violated Iowa law by allegedly traveling in excess of speed limit at the time of the motorcycle accident; evidence regarding compliance with or the absence of minimum Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; evidence supporting a “state of the art” defense; evidence of the defendants’ “good acts”; evidence of collateral source benefits; evidence of any previous pleadings; and evidence of any previous adverse Daubert rulings concerning the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses) 02/25/2013Mark W. Bennett
Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., et al. (Diversity action under Iowa products liability law, arising from a motorcycle accident, involving, inter alia, “design defect” and “manufacturing defect” claims against the motorcycle manufacturer and the manufacturer of an adjustable steering damper incorporated into the motorcycle’s steering mechanism: motorcycle manufacturer’s motion for partial summary judgment on all claims but the plaintiffs’ “design defect” claim, and steering damper manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims: elements of a “manufacturing defect” claim under Iowa law, focusing on proof of an intended design and departure from that design; liability of a component manufacturer for a “design defect” based on “substantial participation” in the design; and requirements for proof of “punitive damages” on an underlying cause of action under Iowa law.) 02/11/2013Mark W. Bennett
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.01/09/2013Leonard T. Strand
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc. (Action by seed producer based on defendant grain elevator company’s refusal to accept transgenic corn grown from the seed producer’s seeds, because it had not been approved for import in China, and placement of signs at the grain elevator company’s facilities stating its reasons for refusing to accept such corn; grain elevator’s motion to dismiss the seed producer’s claims for violation of the United States Warehouse Act (USWA), violation of Iowa warehousing laws, declaratory and injunctive relief, and breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary; grain elevator’s motion for partial summary on the seed producer’s Lanham Act false advertising claim)11/21/2012Mark W. Bennett
Lee v. Small & Toft, et al.11/22/2011Mark W. Bennett
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc. (Action by plaintiff seed producer based on defendant grain elevator company’s refusal to accept transgenic corn grown from the seed producer’s seeds, because it had not been approved for import in China, and placement of signs at the grain elevator company’s facilities stating its reasons for refusing to accept such corn; seed producer’s motion for preliminary injunction: clarification of standards for a preliminary injunction in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008); balancing of the seed producer’s likelihood of success on its claims of violations of the United States Warehouse Act (USWA), 7 U.S.C. § 241 et seq., including whether there is a private right of action for violations of that Act, comparable provisions of Iowa statutory and common-law warehousing obligations, and false advertising pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); the seed producer’s showing of irreparable harm based on damage to reputation and goodwill; the balance of equities in light of the determination on the seed producer’s likelihood of success and the costs to the grain elevator company of accepting the transgenic corn at issue; and the public interest)09/26/2011Mark W. Bennett
McFarland v. McFarland, et al. (Diversity action for slander, libel, and defamation; motion to strike and motions for summary judgment; analysis under Iowa law of whether defendants could establish the required elements for invoking issue preclusion based on Iowa divorce case, and whether defendants’ statements about plaintiff were absolutely privileged under Iowa law. 09/20/2011Mark W. Bennett
Sizemoore v. Producers Cooperative Company, et al. (diversity action arising from an automobile accident, in which the plaintiff alleges that she is now a citizen of Florida; defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the federal action under Colorado River, because the plaintiff filed an identical action in state court two days later that differs only in that the plaintiff alleged that she was a citizen of Iowa at he time of the accident: whether dismissal or stay of this action “at law” is permissible under Colorado River; application of the pertinent factors for Colorado River)09/19/2011Mark W. Bennett
Timmerman, et al v. Eich, et al : (action by debtors and case trustee against former bankruptcy attorneys for malpractice and breach of warranty; bankruptcy attorneys’ motion for summary judgment: standing of the trustee to assert malpractice claims, involving the effect of 11 U.S.C. § 1207 on definition of property of the estate; subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy malpractice claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334; applicability of issue preclusion and judicial estoppel when prior judgment is by consent; applicability of doctrine of in pari delicto; availability of emotional distress damages for bankruptcy malpractice; availability of a breach of warranty claim with a malpractice claim; availability of punitive damages) 09/12/2011Mark W. Bennett
Estate of McFarlin, et al v. City of Storm Lake, et al (action arising from the death of a minor child brought by the child’s mother on behalf of the child’s estate and on behalf of herself and her surviving child for bystander emotional distress and loss of consortium; estranged father’s motion to join as necessary or “required” party pursuant to Rule 19, construed as a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, and defendants’ joinder in Rule 19 motion seeking dismissal: feasibility of joinder of a party who would destroy diversity jurisdiction; whether missing party was “necessary”)09/06/2011Mark W. Bennett
Nam v. Quichocho & Atalig (Saipan real estate contract dispute between a Saipan lawyer lessor (and another co-owner) and a Korean businessman lessee arising from the lessors’ attempt to terminate the lessee’s 55-year lease, on which the lessee had made full payment up front, after only two years; cross-motions for summary judgment on the lessee’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the attorney lessor, premised on the lessee’s belief that he had an attorney-client relationship with the attorney lessor regarding the lease transaction, and on the lessee’s claims against both lessors for breach of contract and restitution; lessee’s motion for summary judgment on the lessors’ counterclaims for slander of title, breach of contract, express contractual indemnity, waste, and quiet title; and lessors’ motion to strike one declaration in support of the lessee’s motion for summary judgment)09/01/2011Mark W. Bennett
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Construction, Inc., et al.08/29/2011Mark W. Bennett
Jason & Jennifer Tucker v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Dzinovic v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Bussey v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Daniel & Libby Sands v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Lewis v. Quality Egg, LLC (See Holt)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Holt v. Quality Egg. LLC (Six actions, consolidated for discovery, arising out of an outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis in the summer of 2010 that was allegedly tied to the defendant’s eggs and egg products: defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss punitive damages claims and Rule 12(f) motions to strike certain allegations in support of punitive damages claims; whether underlying claims must have a “willfulness” element to support an award of punitive damages; whether the regulations and acts underlying a negligence per se claim must permit punitive damages; and whether certain punitive damages allegations concerning past misconduct are related to the underlying causes of action)03/25/2011Mark W. Bennett
Ralph Reeder, M.D. v. Thomas Carroll, M.D.; order granting defendant's summary judgment motion on plaintiff's claims of defamation, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy12/21/2010Linda R. Reade
Dong & Lowery v. Royal Crown Insurance Corp. : (Action arising from the plaintiff insureds’ claims that their insurer failed to defend them against third-party claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which insurer has also filed a counterclaim for indemnity and contribution against the insured who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident, because he was intoxicated; motions for summary judgment by both the insurer and the insureds: statutory preemption of common-law claims; improper assignment of statutory claim; insurer’s duty to defend notwithstanding an DUI Exclusion Clause in the policy; and authorizations for and bars to the counterclaim to recover from the intoxicated insured; court’s summary judgment sua sponte on private action pursuant to statute barred by a decision of the Commonwealth Supreme Court after this case was filed) 10/18/2010Mark W. Bennett
The Estate of Brock C. Pigorsch, et al v. York College v. Harlan Jacobsen d/b/a Video Mania & Eugene Camillocci (tort diversity action concerning motor vehicle accident; defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment: conflict-of-law question concerning whether Iowa, Kansas or Nebraska law was applicable to the substantive legal questions presented in the case; using the choice-of-law rules of the forum state-Iowa, and applying Iowa’s “most significant relationship” test to determine conflict-of-laws questions, the court concluded that Iowa law is applicable to the substantive legal questions presented in the case08/18/2010Mark W. Bennett
Bernadita Aldan & Miguel Aldan v. World Corporation (Slip-and-fall action under CNMI law on diversity jurisdiction: plaintiffs’ motion to amend complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages, pursuant to Rules 15 and 16, after the deadline for amendments in the scheduling order: diligence of the plaintiffs in attempting to discover the new information on which the proposed amendment was based and in filing the motion to amend after actually discovering that new information, prejudice to the defendant of reopening discovery, and futility of the amendment as failing to put the defendant on notice of the claim for punitive damages)04/30/2010Mark W. Bennett
McFarland v. McFarland, et al. Diversity action for slander, libel, and defamation; motion to dismiss; analysis under Iowa law of whether an attorney, who is representing party in a divorce proceedings, is entitled to immunity from suit based on the judicial proceeding privilege. 02/26/2010Mark W. Bennett
McFarland v. McFarland (Diversity action for slander, libel, defamation and tortuous interference with prospective business relations; motion to dismiss; analysis under Iowa law of whether plaintiff had adequately pleaded factual allegations supporting his conspiracy claim such that defendants could be held liable for the foreseeable conduct of each co-conspirator, consideration of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s pleadings of the underlying torts in the amended complaint, and analysis of whether defendant’s statements about plaintiff were absolutely privileged under Iowa law.)01/19/2010Mark W. Bennett
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)11/02/2009Mark W. Bennett
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)04/10/2009Mark W. Bennett
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.)04/10/2009Mark W. Bennett
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).)03/09/2009Mark W. Bennett
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.02/26/2009Linda R. Reade
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. )02/07/2009Mark W. Bennett
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) 11/25/2008Mark W. Bennett
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. 10/02/2008Linda R. Reade
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.)09/29/2008Mark W. Bennett
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)04/19/2007Mark W. Bennett
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.)01/31/2007Mark W. Bennett
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.)01/22/2007Mark W. Bennett
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)11/02/2006Mark W. Bennett
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.)09/26/2006Mark W. Bennett
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. 07/25/2006Linda R. Reade
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.) 07/07/2006Mark W. Bennett
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) 02/27/2006Mark W. Bennett
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)02/06/2006Mark W. Bennett
Colleen Benedict and Joseph Benedict v. Zimmer, Inc.; Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment12/16/2005Linda R. Reade
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 se08/24/2005Linda R. Reade
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)08/08/2005Mark W. Bennett
Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad v. Pay Load, Inc., et al. (Diversity tort action; motion for partial summary judgment; analysis of appropriateness of recover by leasee of locomotive for liquidate loss value set in locomotive lease as compensatory damage where locomotive is damaged in collision with semi-truck; review of damages permitted under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 928 versus Restatement (Second) of Torts § 927; analysis of whether plaintiff could meet its burden of proof as to claim for punitive damages under Iowa Code § 668A.1(1)(a) as to either the truck driver or his employer.)12/15/2004Mark W. Bennett
Brent Kreinbring v. Alternative Claims Services, Inc., Gary Hoffman and Tony Polk; motion to remand; case remanded to state court because notice of removal was not filed within 30 days of: (1) the date defendants were served with the complaint; or (2) the date from which defendants could reasonably ascertain the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.0005/27/2004Linda R. Reade
Hodgin v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. and United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.; Order on motion for summary judgment; analysis of whether: (1) Hodgin properly served TWA with process, (2) Hodgin released all of his claims against TWA, and (3) Hodgin may maintain a direct action against USAU as an insurer03/03/2004Linda R. Reade
Pippert v. Gundersen Clinic, Ltd.; Order on motion for summary judgment and motion to strike or in the alternative to amend complaint alleging fraudulent misrepresentation01/14/2004Linda R. Reade
Cochran v. Gehrke, Inc. and National Tank Corporation(Litigation after construction accident; general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment on cross-claim of contractual indemnity against sub-contractor: principles of Iowa law regarding contractual indemnity, including interpretation and construction of indemnity provisions, indemnity for indemnitee’s own negligence, and roles of court and jury in determination of indemnity claim)11/24/2003Mark W. Bennett
Thomson v. Gummiwerk Kraiburg Elastik, et. al.; Order on defendants' motions for summary judgment, motion to exclude and motion to strike; whether expert testimony meets admissibility requirements under Daubert; whether Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate where party fails to comply with Rule 26 disclosure requirements11/13/2003Linda R. Reade
Eischeid v. Dover Construction, Inc., et al. (Suit by injured employee of subcontractor against general contractor and third-party indemnity claims by and among general contractor and two subcontractors; employee’s motion to extend dispositive motion deadline granted; employee’s motion for summary judgment on liability portion of “direct” negligence claim against general contractor, based on “contractual” and “control of the job” liability theories, granted; employee’s motion to sever trial on indemnity claims from trial on damages issues on “direct” negligence claim granted; and employee’s motion to intervene in third-party indemnity action as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) denied, but permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) granted).08/25/2003Mark W. Bennett
Eischeid v. Dover Construction, et al. ("Direct" and third-party claims arising from a construction accident; motions for summary judgment on claims by and against defendant, third-party defendant, and third-party plaintiff Woods Masonry: whether plaintiff’s "direct" negligence claims against his employer/subcontractor are barred by the "exclusive remedy" provisions of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA); whether the contractor’s contribution, indemnity, and breach-of-contract claims against the subcontractor/employer are also barred by the IWCA; whether the subcontractor/employer’s third-party claim against another subcontractor are barred by purported admissions of the subcontractor/employer’s president that the subcontractor and its employees "did nothing wrong")06/03/2003Mark W. Bennett
Zeigler v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (Order granting partial summary judgment to toy manufacturer in products liability case. Plaintiff asserted claim for emotional distress damages arising from allegation that defendant fraudulently concealed and failed to disclose to plaintiff information about fire hazard posed by Power Wheels toy. Court held Iowa law does not support a claim for emotional distress damages in a fraud action. Discussion of Iowa law relating to emotional distress claims.)05/08/2003Paul A. Zoss
dePape v. Trinity Health Systems et al. (Bench trial; foreign physician (Canadian) contracted with defendants Trinity and Trimark to be family physician, Trinity retained an out-of-state law firm to represent physician in his immigration to United States; law firm never contacted physician or explained immigration process; physician showed up at United States border ready to begin his new life and career in the United States, but because his position did not match the position described in the INS application, INS denied his entry and physician was unable to gain entry to U.S.; physician sued Trinity and Trimark under theories of contract and promissory estoppel, but there was no basis in fact or law to hold these defendants liable; law firm, however, breached its duty to advise and communicate with the plaintiff; the law firm’s breach caused the plaintiff to forego employment options in Canada; court awarded $278,736.20, plus pre-judgment interest, for lost income and emotional distress damages.)01/20/2003Mark W. Bennett
McGuire v. Davidson Mfg Corp. and Louisville Ladder Group LLC (Order granting in part, denying in part, motion to exclude expert testimony in diversity action. Analysis focuses on Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, with citations to numerous Eighth Circuit and other federal cases. Discussion of "differential analysis" methodology)01/08/2003Paul A. Zoss
Show details for (Not Categorized)(Not Categorized)