Charles B. Kornmann

This case involves a dispute between Northern Valley, a competitive local exchange carrier, and Qwest, an interexchange carrier, over whether Northern Valley can bill Qwest for terminating switched access services for calls to conference calling numbers provided to Global Conference under Northern Valley's tariff, with Qwest alleging a traffic pumping scheme involving profit-sharing. Qwest filed counterclaims against Northern Valley and Global Conference, and Global Conference filed a counterclaim against Qwest for refusing to pay the charges. The court denied Northern Valley's motion to dismiss three of Qwest's counterclaims, finding that Qwest had standing to assert injury from the alleged scheme and that the claims were adequately pled given the disputed facts. The court also denied Qwest's motion to dismiss Global Conference's counterclaim, determining that the facts regarding tariff obligations were contested and the claim could not be dismissed at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe challenging the U.S. Department of State's issuance of a presidential permit for the Keystone pipeline, which crosses the U.S.-Canada border, on grounds that the agency failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding cultural and historic resources under the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction because the permit issuance stems from the President's inherent constitutional authority over foreign affairs and international relations rather than statutory authority alone, making the action non-justiciable. Core reasoning emphasized that such presidential power is plenary and exclusive, requiring deference that precludes judicial review of the consultation process or permit decision in this context.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

Northern Valley Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier, sued Qwest Communications, an interexchange carrier, to recover amounts allegedly owed for originating and terminating telephone access services under federal and state tariffs, asserting claims including breach of contract, violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and unjust enrichment. Qwest moved to dismiss only the unjust enrichment claim. The court denied the motion, ruling that the complaint alleged enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly standard, even if actual proof of the facts might appear improbable.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute between Northern Valley, a competitive local exchange carrier, and AT&T, a long-distance carrier, over whether Northern Valley is entitled to payment under its federal and state tariffs for providing switched access services to terminate long-distance calls to conference calling numbers. Northern Valley sued for breach of contract, violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and related claims seeking over $6 million, while AT&T counterclaimed alleging improper billing for services not covered by the tariffs, unjust enrichment, and other violations tied to alleged traffic pumping arrangements. The court considered Northern Valley's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its claims and AT&T's counterclaims. The court denied the motion, finding that material factual disputes exist regarding whether the calls terminated to end users as required by the tariffs and whether the services qualified for compensation under the filed rates and the Act.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor and was sentenced to 87 months in prison; he later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a notice of appeal. The court decided to deny the motion as untimely and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the motion was filed more than one year after the conviction became final, exceeding the statute of limitations, and the defendant failed to show due diligence in discovering the alleged failure to appeal or extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that prevented timely filing; he had also been advised at sentencing that he could request the clerk of courts to file an appeal on his behalf.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a defendant convicted of abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse of a minor, and incest who was sentenced to 295 months in prison after an initial remand for resentencing; he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel plus newly discovered evidence that one victim had recanted her testimony. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the motion in full, finding no ineffective assistance and determining that the alleged recantation—based solely on unsworn hearsay statements from the defendant's family members—was not credible and would not likely lead to an acquittal if presented at a retrial. The court also corrected a plain error in the sentence on one count (reducing it from 36 to 24 months) but noted that the change had no effect on the total term of imprisonment, and it denied a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a federal indictment charging defendant Duran R. Richotte with assaulting a federal law enforcement officer and inflicting bodily injury. The defendant moved to dismiss under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act after being transferred from tribal custody to state custody and then to federal custody without a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or proper notice, resulting in a violation of the Act's anti-shuttling provisions. The court found that the FBI and prosecutor failed to follow required procedures for obtaining custody, leading to an improper transfer that triggered the IADA protections. After weighing factors including the offense allegations, the circumstances of the violation, the defendant's conduct on release, and the impact on the detainer agreement, the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves multiple defendants charged with failing to register as sex offenders under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) after prior juvenile adjudications for qualifying sex offenses. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictments on constitutional grounds, including violations of the Ex Post Facto, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Commerce Clauses, as well as the Non-Delegation Doctrine. The court denied the motions to dismiss in each case, adopted the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations, and overruled the defendants' objections. The core reasoning was that the challenges lacked legal merit, as SORNA's provisions were consistent with constitutional requirements and Congress had supplied an intelligible principle for any delegated rulemaking authority.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved Sierra Club's lawsuit against Otter Tail Corp. alleging violations of the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions, New Source Performance Standards, and related South Dakota state implementation plan requirements at the Big Stone Generating Station power plant. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that certain claims were untimely, barred by the concurrent remedy doctrine, or constituted an improper collateral attack on a valid state-issued permit. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provisions because those claims could only be pursued through the Title V operating permit review and objection process involving the EPA and federal appellate review, not a direct enforcement action. The opinion explained that Title V permits compile existing requirements and that challenges to omitted NSPS limits must follow the statutory petition and judicial review procedures rather than a separate lawsuit.

environment

This case involved a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for medical negligence by a doctor at an Indian Health Service hospital who performed surgery to remove a lipoma from the incorrect location on the plaintiff's thigh. The court determined that the defendant was liable because the physician failed to obtain proper informed consent and operated on the wrong site, breaching the standard of care under South Dakota law. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded $20,000 in damages for pain, disfigurement, and related issues, though claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress were denied due to insufficient evidence of physical manifestations, and unrelated medical costs were not compensated.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Clayton Creek challenging his 2004 South Dakota state convictions for two counts of forgery, to which he had pleaded guilty and received consecutive ten-year sentences. Creek claimed his convictions resulted from perjured testimony and suppressed evidence, and he also raised issues regarding his competency to enter the pleas, though he had not pursued a direct appeal. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed it with prejudice, finding the claims procedurally defaulted, waived by the guilty pleas, and that the state courts had not unreasonably applied federal law in determining competency or denying relief. The court further noted that Creek was not prevented from filing an appeal and was not prejudiced by any scheduling matters.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Barbara Dewald's challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The court determined that the administrative law judge had failed to properly evaluate the opinions of Dewald's medical providers, reassess her testimony and credibility considering her mental impairments, and adequately develop the record through additional consultative examinations and testing. The remand directed the Commissioner to issue a new decision based on the record as a whole and relevant legal standards.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved a defendant indicted on federal drug conspiracy charges under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 860 for alleged conduct within 1,000 feet of a playground, facing enhanced penalties. The defendant moved to dismiss the § 860 portions of the indictment, arguing that a skate park did not meet the statutory definition of a "playground" requiring three or more separate apparatus for children's recreation and that the distance element was unproven. The court denied the motion to dismiss after adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the questions of whether the location qualified as a playground and whether the distance requirement was satisfied were mixed questions of law and fact to be resolved at trial by a trier of fact, not pure legal issues amenable to pretrial disposition.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Berner, the defendant moved to dismiss a federal indictment charging willful failure to pay child support under 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3), arguing that the amount owed fell below the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold and that he lacked notice of the underlying state support order. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the motion. It held that the dollar amount is a substantive element of the felony offense rather than a jurisdictional requirement, that interstate residence between parent and child establishes jurisdiction, and that collateral attacks on the validity of the state support order are not permitted in Deadbeat Parents Act prosecutions. The court further ruled that the indictment, which tracks the statutory language, is facially sufficient and that sufficiency of the evidence must be tested at trial rather than by pretrial dismissal.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved a defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and life sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child and simple assault, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel on grounds of failing to address his mental competency, preventing him from testifying, and not forcing him to accept a plea deal. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the motion in full. The court reasoned that there was no evidence suggesting the defendant was incompetent at trial, that counsel's actions were reasonable, and that the other claims were unsupported or contradicted by the record, also denying a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a Native American plaintiff who sued the United States, HUD, and the Department of the Interior under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the agencies negligently created, supervised, and administered a lease and Mutual Help Occupancy Agreement for a home on trust land and failed to enforce their standards, resulting in denied repairs and title conveyance. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the FTCA claim was barred by the plaintiff's prior filing in the Court of Federal Claims, that the APA claim effectively sought money damages rather than other relief, and that federal agencies had no direct duty or privity regarding maintenance and repairs, which were the responsibility of the local housing authority.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertytorts & liability

In Mayou v. Ferguson, a personal injury case stemming from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to designate a treating physician (previously disclosed only as a fact witness) as a rebuttal expert after the defendants' expert disclosure deadline. The defendants moved to strike the expert's report and bar the testimony, contending that the absence of any provision for rebuttal experts in the parties' agreement or the court's scheduling order prohibited the late designation and amounted to an unfair surprise. The court denied the motion, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits a rebuttal expert disclosure within 30 days when the scheduling order is silent, and it ordered that the plaintiff make the expert available for deposition while allowing the defendants to retain and depose their own rebuttal expert.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the United States seeking to collect a criminal judgment debt of over $123,000 (including restitution and a fine) from defendant Kelvin James Lawrence, who had been sentenced in 1996 for making a false statement to a government agency. The government applied for a writ of continuing garnishment against his employer under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3205, after the defendant had made only minimal payments over many years and failed to disclose new employment. The defendant moved to quash the garnishment, arguing it violated the original judgment and a 2006 payment agreement with the government. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, sustaining the government's objection to the garnishee's answer and denying the motion to quash, finding the garnishment justified under the circumstances and not an abuse under 28 U.S.C. § 3013. The core reasoning was that the defendant's history of slow payments, nondisclosure of employment changes, and the large remaining balance supported the government's use of garnishment to enforce the debt.

criminal law

In this case, Verizon Wireless sought a declaratory judgment and injunction against enforcement of South Dakota statutes (SDCL 49-31-110 and 111) that required originating carriers to transmit specific signaling information for local and nonlocal telecommunications traffic to enable assessment of transport and termination charges. The court held that these provisions, along with related penalty and complaint mechanisms, are preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC regulations as applied to commercial mobile radio service providers. The core reasoning was that the state requirements conflict with federal intercarrier compensation rules, cannot be satisfied due to the absence of commonly accepted industry standards for distinguishing traffic types, and improperly intrude on federal regulatory authority over such matters.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose from a contract dispute stemming from the construction of an ethanol plant by North Central Construction (now American Prairie Construction Co.) for Tri-State Ethanol Company (TSE), which later entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy; the plaintiff sought to enforce a $2.5 million settlement agreement reached during bankruptcy proceedings involving post-petition financing from Tri-State Financial, LLC (TSF) and its investor John Hoich. The court determined that TSF and Hoich were bound by the agreement, which had been presented to the bankruptcy court, and held them jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for $2.5 million plus prejudgment interest, as the evidence established mutual assent to the essential terms and a subsequent breach. The court rejected defenses such as novation, finding insufficient evidence that any later agreement substituted for the original one, and noted that the matter of a related settlement with the bankruptcy trustee should be remanded for further consideration.

business & regulatory