John Alfred Jarvey

This case involved a dispute over an IRS Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) disallowing foreign tax credits claimed by Pritired 1, LLC, a partnership formed by U.S. companies including Principal Life Insurance Company, in connection with a transaction with French banks. The U.S. companies contributed $300 million that was pooled with $900 million from the French banks and invested in low-risk securities; the arrangement allowed the U.S. entities to claim credits for French taxes paid on the full $1.2 billion while providing the French banks below-market financing. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the United States, finding that the transaction should be recharacterized as a loan rather than a partnership investment because it lacked the intent to form a true partnership and exhibited predominant debt characteristics such as limited risk, fixed returns, and minimal voting rights. The court further held that the transaction lacked economic substance independent of its tax benefits and violated applicable anti-abuse rules under the tax code and regulations.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns Iowa State University Veterinary Services Corporation's (VSC) motion for a preliminary injunction against three former employees of a specialty veterinary clinic it acquired: Drs. Derek Nestor and Steven Reimer, and operations manager Paul Hanika. VSC alleged that the defendants breached non-competition and confidentiality agreements (and common-law duties) by launching a competing clinic, Iowa Veterinary Referral Center, and misappropriating confidential information. After a multi-day hearing, the court granted the injunction against Drs. Nestor and Reimer, finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits because their agreements were valid, assignable, and enforceable, with agreed-upon irreparable harm, while denying relief against Hanika due to insufficient likelihood of success on his claims. The decision balanced the Dataphase factors, including public interest in enforcing contracts and ISU's educational mission, and ordered a $2 million bond. The court rejected defenses based on Iowa law limiting university competition with private enterprise and questions about VSC's authority to own a veterinary practice.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves RFMS Inc. and related entities seeking contribution from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a portion of a $250,000 settlement paid in a state-court wrongful death and medical malpractice suit arising from care at a nursing home. The government moved to dismiss the new federal action, arguing that a prior federal court dismissal of similar third-party claims against the VA barred the suit under res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). The court denied the motion, holding that the earlier dismissal rested on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because RFMS had sued the VA rather than the United States, and that any alternative rulings on service of process or failure to state a claim were therefore without preclusive effect. Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be resolved before reaching the merits, the prior alternative grounds for dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves parents Patrick and Michelle Korte suing Mead Johnson on behalf of their premature infant D.J.K., alleging that the company's Enfamil Human Milk Fortifier product, specifically Batch No. BMO05C, was contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria and caused the child's serious illness. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove medical causation. The court granted the motion in full, finding that the plaintiffs' expert witnesses failed to provide reliable evidence linking the product to the illness, that the timing of symptoms did not support causation, and that other potential sources of infection could not be ruled out. The decision rested on the insufficiency of both the plaintiffs' and defendant's expert analyses under applicable evidentiary standards for establishing causation in a products liability action.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves the United States government's civil forfeiture action seeking to seize $61,200 found in a van during a traffic stop, where officers discovered the cash hidden in various packages along with marijuana and drug paraphernalia; claimant Brian Szymczak asserted the money was his legitimate life savings accumulated over years of work and stored outside banks due to distrust. The government moved for summary judgment, citing the money's packaging methods, a narcotics dog's alert, the claimant's prior marijuana-related arrest, and inconsistencies in his account of travel and income. The court denied the motion, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed about the money's connection to drug activity and its legitimate origins, which precluded summary disposition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether Principal Life Insurance Co. breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by retaining 'float' income—interest earned on plan contributions before they were invested—without adequate disclosure to the Fairmount Park, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan. Plaintiff Joseph Ruppert, the plan trustee, challenged Principal's practices after the parties entered into service agreements in 2000 and 2004. The court granted Principal's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the 2004 Agreement explicitly disclosed that Principal could earn and retain float income at money market rates, with deposits typically invested the same day or as soon as possible. The disclosure provided Ruppert with actual or constructive knowledge of the compensation arrangement, defeating any claim of breach or extending the statute of limitations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Feller v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance, plaintiff Rebecca Feller sued Hartford Life in Iowa state court for breach of contract and bad-faith denial of a $50,000 accidental death benefit claim under an insurance policy covering her husband, seeking the policy amount plus 12% interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Hartford removed the case to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 when including potential punitive damages recoverable under Iowa law for bad-faith insurance claims and anticipated attorney's fees. Feller moved to remand, arguing that Hartford failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold was met based on the face of the complaint. The court denied the motion, holding that punitive damages for bad faith and projected attorney's fees could properly be considered in calculating the amount in controversy, and that a factfinder could conclude the damages exceeded $75,000.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves Galen Lee Jimmerson's application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits, based on claims of disability from carbon monoxide poisoning that caused or worsened asthma, chest pain, memory loss, vision and breathing problems, along with neck and back issues. The Social Security Administration denied the claim at the initial and reconsideration stages, and an Administrative Law Judge upheld the denial after a hearing. The district court reviewed the administrative record and found that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, including because the vocational expert's testimony—when properly accounting for the medical evidence and the claimant's subjective complaints—showed that Jimmerson could not perform full-time competitive work. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's final decision and remanded the matter for an award of benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved a motion by plaintiff Joseph Ruppert to reconsider and vacate the court's prior order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Principal Life Insurance Co. on ERISA claims (Counts I and II) alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions related to revenue sharing arrangements in a retirement savings plan's investment options, specifically the Foundation Options mutual funds. The court granted the motion in part, vacating its earlier judgment only as to those funds. The core reasoning was that the Eighth Circuit's intervening decision in Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. established contradictory precedent on whether revenue sharing payments from mutual funds could support such ERISA claims, constituting an exceptional circumstance warranting relief under Rule 60(b) due to newly available controlling authority.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Garrison v. Burt, petitioner Howard Paul Garrison sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his state-court convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, arguing that prosecutorial misconduct in introducing irrelevant testimony during the first trial forced a mistrial and violated double jeopardy by necessitating a retrial, that the misconduct rendered the second trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The district court denied the petition in full. It held that the state courts reasonably determined the prosecutor's error was not intentional and thus did not bar retrial under double-jeopardy principles, that any misconduct did not infect the trial with unfairness amounting to a due-process violation, and that substantial circumstantial evidence supported the jury's guilty verdicts. The court therefore concluded that Garrison failed to show the state proceedings resulted in decisions contrary to, or involving unreasonable applications of, clearly established federal law.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Grain Processing Corporation sued Governor Culver to enjoin his appointment of an arbitration and conciliation board under Iowa Code Chapter 679B to investigate and resolve an ongoing labor dispute with UFCW Local 86D. The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the Governor's proposed action is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act under the Supremacy Clause. The core reasoning is that the NLRA broadly preempts state regulation of labor disputes through compelled investigation, recommendations, and public decisions, that the local interest exception does not apply because the record shows no violence, and that severing preempted provisions would leave the board with no authority.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved IRS assessments of trust fund recovery penalties totaling over $700,000 against Charles Colosimo, Carolyn Colosimo, and another individual under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6671 and 6672 for allegedly failing to pay over withheld income and FICA taxes from C & C Distribution Services, Inc. Colosimo sued for a refund and abatement, while the government counterclaimed to reduce the assessments to judgment. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment against Charles Colosimo, finding he was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay the taxes based on his financial authority at the company and evidence that he prioritized other creditors despite knowledge of the unpaid taxes. It granted Carolyn Colosimo's motion for summary judgment, concluding she was not a responsible person, and denied Colosimo's cross-motion and related motions to strike.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury on seven counts including conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, distribution offenses, possession with intent to distribute, and felon-in-possession of a firearm. Following the verdict, substitute counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance by trial counsel, such as failing to move to suppress statements or evidence, not calling certain witnesses, inadequate cross-examination, and issues related to counsel's health. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard requiring proof of deficient performance and resulting prejudice, analyzed each claim individually, and concluded that none met the threshold for relief. The motion for new trial was therefore denied.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves Genia Rapp's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming inability to work due to multiple physical impairments including degenerative disc disease, spinal issues, hip dysplasia, arthritis, and knee problems following surgeries. The district court reviewed the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits, which had been upheld by an Administrative Law Judge. The court reversed the decision and remanded for an award of benefits, finding that the ALJ's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians who indicated Rapp required a two-hour daily break, a limitation that a vocational expert testified would prevent full-time competitive employment. The ALJ's hypothetical questions to the expert also omitted this key restriction from the medical evidence.

labor & employment

The case involves Criterion 508 Solutions suing Lockheed Martin Services over work performed by former Criterion subcontractor Angy Brooks and her company BWS for Lockheed via intermediary GCI on Section 508 accessibility compliance projects for the Social Security Administration. Criterion alleged violations of a two-year non-compete agreement, misuse of confidential information and trade secrets, and related claims including unjust enrichment, with disputes over whether Brooks was an employee or independent contractor and Lockheed's potential vicarious liability. The court granted Lockheed's motion for summary judgment on Counts I, III, and VIII in full, and granted it in part and denied it in part on Counts II and V, relying on prior state court judgments against Brooks/BWS, lack of privity for certain preclusion effects, and analysis of the restrictive covenant's enforceability and employment relationship facts.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves relators, who are attorneys handling medical malpractice cases, alleging that Iowa Medicaid system operators and officials violated the False Claims Act by failing to pursue reimbursement from negligent medical providers for expenses covered by the Medicaid program. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that the defendants' interpretation of Iowa Code § 147.136 as barring such recoveries was reasonable and thus did not render any claims or certifications knowingly false under the FCA standards from Twombly and Iqbal. The court further held that state officials could not be sued individually under the FCA for actions taken within their official duties.

healthcarecriminal lawprocedure

The case involves a contract dispute in which West Liberty Telephone Company sued CopperCom Acquisition Corporation (CCAC) and CopperCom, Inc. after CCAC acquired Phonetics, Inc., which had entered into a license agreement with Liberty for telecommunications equipment and services. Liberty asserted five breach-of-contract claims against the defendants, alleging they assumed Phonetics' obligations under the agreement. The court granted CopperCom's motion for summary judgment on the breach-of-contract and breach-of-good-faith claims because CopperCom was not a party to the acquisition agreement, but denied summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court denied CCAC's motion for summary judgment on all counts because the acquisition agreement's allocation of post-closing liabilities under the assumed contracts was ambiguous, and the absence of the closing balance sheet created genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of any obligations CCAC assumed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), a trade association, and FutureFuel Chemical Co. (FFCC), a former member, over unpaid membership dues under their Member Payment Agreement. NBB filed suit in Iowa state court to collect the dues, and FFCC removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing a prior related action in Arkansas, insufficient contacts with Iowa, and claims that the agreement's forum selection clause was unreasonable or conflicted with Clean Air Act regulations on fuel registration and health effects data sharing. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable, that it established personal jurisdiction in Iowa, and that it did not violate public policy or EPA rules on cost-sharing for data development. The court also declined to stay or dismiss the case under the first-filed rule due to the circumstances of the parallel litigation.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved a former floral manager at Hy-Vee who sued the company for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act after being removed from her position at age 52. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that its performance-based reasons for the action were not shown to be pretextual. The court granted summary judgment to the employer and dismissed all claims, finding that although a prima facie case was established, there was no direct evidence of discriminatory animus and the plaintiff's own testimony showed her belief in age discrimination rested solely on being replaced by a younger worker without other supporting facts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a 2003 agreement in which the plaintiffs sold their 50% interest in Twin City Minerals, whose sole asset was a half-ownership in Superior Minerals, to the defendants; the plaintiffs later alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties by withholding material information about Superior's value and prospects, violated Iowa insider trading laws, and improperly recalculated the purchase price following a subsequent redemption agreement that gave Twin City full ownership of Superior. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants on all counts and dismissed the claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to prove any material nondisclosures, insider trading violations, or improper recalculations, as the evidence established that the parties were aware of Superior's financial difficulties, the challenged asset valuations (including a cement supply contract) were reasonable and supported by arm's-length assessments, and no additional undisclosed consideration or value was shown to have been withheld.

business & regulatorytorts & liability