This diversity case arose from a 2008 grain elevator explosion and fire in Iowa allegedly caused by an overheated pillow block bearing, leading plaintiff Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance to assert products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims against SMA (the general contractor), Baldor (the bearing manufacturer), and Schlagel (the elevator leg designer and manufacturer). Each defendant moved for summary judgment on some or all claims. Applying Iowa law, the court analyzed SMA's statutory immunity from product defect claims, the existence and timeliness of implied and express warranty claims, and the sufficiency of evidence on design, manufacturing, warning, and installation defects, granting summary judgment where claims failed as a matter of law due to lack of assembler status, absence of particular-purpose reliance, or statute of limitations bars, while allowing other claims to proceed.
This case involves allegations by the United States that defendants Russell T. Hawley and Hawley Insurance, Inc. facilitated fraudulent multi-peril crop insurance claims in 2000 and 2001 by submitting applications in the names of ineligible individuals, leading to government reimbursements totaling over $300,000. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on False Claims Act counts, contending that 2009 amendments to the FCA under the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act do not apply retroactively to pre-2009 conduct and that any retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and Due Process rights. The court examined summary judgment standards, the text and intent of the FCA amendments, and constitutional limits on retroactivity before issuing its order on the motion.
In this case, plaintiff Fraserside IP L.L.C. brought copyright and trademark infringement claims against defendant Youngtek Solutions Limited, a foreign corporation, alleging unauthorized use of adult motion pictures on websites. After the clerk entered default against Youngtek for failing to respond, Youngtek moved to set aside the default, arguing insufficient service of process, and the plaintiff moved for default judgment. The court granted the motion to set aside the default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) and denied the motion for default judgment. The core reasoning was that service on the Cypriot defendant did not comply with the Hague Convention because the summons and complaint lacked a required Greek translation, rendering service invalid and the default void or set aside for good cause, as the defendant acted promptly upon learning of the suit and had potential defenses.
This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which former Dollar General store manager Pamm Joyner-Azbill and other plaintiffs sought overtime pay, while the defendants contended that store managers qualify for the executive exemption and thus are not entitled to overtime. The defendants moved for summary judgment against Joyner and also moved to strike certain evidence. The court applied the regulatory factors for the executive exemption, including the employee's primary duty, percentage of time on exempt work, discretionary authority, freedom from supervision, salary level, and supervision of two or more employees, using the detailed facts about corporate control, district-manager oversight, and the store manager's responsibilities. After reviewing the record under the summary-judgment standards and addressing evidentiary objections, the court resolved the motions.
In Strom v. Holiday Companies, a former female sales associate at a convenience store sued her employer and supervisor under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, claiming she faced a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation after complaining. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff could not prove the harassment was based on sex, sufficiently severe or pervasive, or that the employer had notice and failed to act, and that no prima facie retaliation case existed. The court denied the motion after reviewing the factual record, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed on the elements of both the hostile environment claim, including the supervisor's conduct and the employer's response, and the retaliation claim involving protected activity and causation.
This case involved an ERISA dispute over health insurance benefits under a plan administered by Coventry Health Care of Iowa. Plaintiff Diane Kitterman sought coverage for ovarian cancer treatment at an out-of-network provider, believing her liability was capped at the $8,000 out-of-pocket maximum, but the administrator denied full payment citing exclusions for out-of-network charges. The district court initially ruled for Kitterman, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, interpreting the plan to exclude such charges from the maximum, and remanded. On remand, the court determined that Kitterman could not prevail on her benefits claim because the Schedule of Benefits aligned with the plan terms and no separate disclosure violation claim was made, leading to judgment in favor of Coventry.
.jpg?width=900)