Mark W. Bennett

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

healthcarelabor & employment

This case involved claims by a convenience store manager against her employer and area manager under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Iowa Civil Rights Act, alleging disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation based on a back condition with periodic flare-ups that caused temporary lifting and standing restrictions. The plaintiff had disclosed her history of back issues when hired but was later terminated after failing to cover vacant shifts. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, holding that the plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the pre-amendment ADA standards because her impairments did not substantially limit major life activities, that she failed to show the employer's stated reason for termination was pretextual, and that there was no actionable failure to accommodate or retaliation. The parallel ICRA claims were dismissed under the same analysis.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves an 'e-mail trespass' dispute in which plaintiffs, an independent contractor and his consulting company, allege that defendants, including former business associates and their IT provider, improperly accessed stored emails on a company server in violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., along with related state-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the SCA claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court identifies the key issue as whether the complaint adequately pleads that the defendants' access to the emails was unauthorized or exceeded authorization by the entity alleged to be the provider of electronic communications services (the IT contractor). Applying standards from Twombly and Iqbal, the opinion analyzes the elements of a § 2701(a) claim, including the requirement of unauthorized access to a facility providing electronic communications services, and addresses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

procedurecriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case is a breach-of-contract action brought by former AFLAC insurance agent Gerrit Vis, who alleges the company improperly stopped paying renewal commissions after terminating his contract. AFLAC moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act, citing a broad arbitration clause in the parties' agreement that covers contract disputes. Vis countered that the clause is unenforceable because the contract is one of adhesion and the arbitration provision is unconscionable. The court analyzed arbitrability under the FAA, the validity of the agreement, and related issues such as whether the dispute falls within the clause's scope, then addressed disposition of the motion to compel and stay. The opinion applies Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA to determine whether arbitration must proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Jason M. Powell's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Iowa state convictions for first-degree eluding, second-degree theft, assault on a peace officer, and attempted murder arising from a 2005 police chase in which he drove toward a sheriff. Powell objected only to the magistrate judge's recommendation denying his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, specifically that counsel gave incorrect advice during plea negotiations about the mandatory minimum prison time he would face if convicted of attempted murder. After de novo review, the district court overruled the objection, finding that the state courts' rejection of the claim did not rest on unreasonable factual determinations or an unreasonable application of federal law under Strickland v. Washington. The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendations on Powell's remaining claims, to which no objection was made, and denied the petition in full along with a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Christine Dollar's claims against her employer SMX under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging interference with her right to medical leave for depression and retaliation through termination while on leave; she also initially raised but later withdrew an Iowa wrongful discharge claim. Following a bench trial, the court addressed whether SMX could lawfully terminate Dollar without evaluating FMLA protections and how to assess her ability to return to work relative to her original or reassigned position. The court determined that Dollar was an eligible employee entitled to FMLA leave, that SMX interfered with and retaliated against her exercise of those rights, and awarded remedies including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, and interest, while denying punitive damages. Core reasoning focused on FMLA eligibility requirements, the seriousness of the health condition, adequate notice, denial of benefits, and calculations for equitable relief based on the evidence presented.

labor & employment

The case concerned the sentencing of defendant Billy Williams, Sr., following his guilty plea to crack cocaine charges, with the central issue being the appropriate crack-to-powder cocaine ratio to apply when calculating the advisory sentencing guidelines range. The court reviewed the origins of the original 100:1 ratio under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, noting its hasty enactment without empirical support and its flaws such as overstatement of crack's dangers and racially disparate impacts, as well as the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act's reduction to an 18:1 ratio via congressional compromise rather than new evidence or Commission expertise. The opinion analyzed whether the revised ratio resolved prior inconsistencies with statutory sentencing goals or unwarranted disparities, ultimately outlining a methodology to determine the proper ratio by weighing statutory minimums, relevant factors, and policy considerations separate from the guidelines. The court focused exclusively on this ratio issue while setting aside other sentencing objections for separate resolution.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case Holt v. Quality Egg, L.L.C. arose from a 2010 Salmonella outbreak linked to the defendant's egg products, with plaintiffs asserting claims for strict products liability, negligence, negligence per se, and in some instances punitive damages. After the defendant moved under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to dismiss the punitive damages claims and strike supporting allegations, and other motions became moot following amendments to the complaints, the court addressed the remaining issues on the written submissions. The court examined Iowa law standards for punitive damages, including whether the underlying claims require a willfulness element, whether the regulations and acts at issue permit such damages, and whether the punitive damages allegations are sufficiently related to the causes of action.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose after the court granted partial summary judgment finding that Woodbury County jail employees violated plaintiff Maureen Rattray's Fourth Amendment rights by strip-searching her without reasonable suspicion, leaving only the issue of damages for trial. The jury first returned a verdict awarding both compensatory damages totaling over $9,000 and $250,000 in nominal damages, which conflicted with the jury instructions stating that nominal damages of $1 should be awarded only if no other damages were given. After the court sent the jury back for further deliberations, it returned a second verdict of $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress; the court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial due to the initial inconsistent verdict and related procedural problems in handling the jury, while denying remittitur because the award did not shock the conscience.

civil rightsprocedure

In Baker v. Catlin Specialty Insurance, the dispute centered on whether a modified 1979 Chevrolet pickup truck—altered to carry auxiliary fuel tanks and used to refuel equipment at a rural Iowa salvage yard—qualified as an "auto" or "mobile equipment" under a commercial general liability policy after the truck was involved in a fatal accident on public roads. The estate of the accident victim sued for coverage, claiming the policy required the insurer to defend and indemnify the salvage company, but the insurer had denied the claim citing exclusions. The court examined the policy language, which defined mobile equipment in part as vehicles maintained solely on the insured's premises or primarily for purposes other than transporting persons or cargo, and found that the truck's use to haul fuel on public highways placed it outside those definitions and within the auto exclusion. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding there was no duty to provide coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Johnson v. Dollar General, plaintiff Todd Johnson sued his former employer alleging termination in retaliation for missing work due to an illness related to a prior heart attack, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), along with a failure to provide COBRA benefits notice under ERISA and related state claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the complaint did not sufficiently allege Johnson's status as an eligible employee, a serious health condition, proper notice to the employer, a request for COBRA benefits, or a basis for punitive damages. The court evaluated the pleadings against FMLA standards for eligibility, serious health conditions, and notice requirements, as well as COBRA's qualifying event notification rules and the unavailability of punitive damages under those statutes.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved claims for breach of contract and conversion arising from two alleged agreements between the parties concerning the flushing of embryos from a prize cow and the sale of semen from a bull, originally filed in Iowa state court. The defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but the plaintiff moved to remand, contending that the jurisdictional minimum was not met. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the defendant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfied the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The reasoning focused on the need to assess jurisdiction based on the complaint at the time of removal, the plaintiff's inability to plead a specific damages amount under Iowa procedural rules, and the requirement to resolve all doubts about federal jurisdiction in favor of remand.

procedurefederal power

This case involved the sentencing of defendants Steven Keith VandeBrake and Kent Robert Stewart following their guilty pleas to violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, for engaging in price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies in the concrete industry. The court calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines ranges for each defendant, considered possible departures under various provisions, and evaluated whether the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warranted a variance from the guidelines. After analyzing the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the defendants' histories and characteristics, and other statutory factors, the court imposed sentences that included terms of imprisonment and fines. The reasoning centered on the volume of commerce affected, the defendants' roles in the conspiracies, and the need to promote respect for the law and deter similar conduct.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Maureen Rattray alleged that Woodbury County violated her Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a strip search without reasonable suspicion after her arrest for a serious misdemeanor OWI offense, pursuant to a jail policy requiring such searches for all arrestees charged with serious misdemeanors or higher. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment establishing the defendants' liability as a matter of law and denying qualified immunity, leaving only the issue of damages for trial. This opinion addresses the plaintiff's pending pretrial motions to exclude expert testimony, exclude certain evidence via motions in limine, and impose sanctions through an adverse inference instruction based on the defendants' destruction of part of a video recording of the search and booking process, analyzing admissibility and the appropriateness of spoliation sanctions for the upcoming damages trial.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved investors who lost money after giving funds to a now-deceased broker for nonexistent investments, suing the broker's former employers (successor securities firms) for negligence, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, addressing the timeliness of claims under the statute of limitations, whether the firms owed duties to non-customers, the necessity of expert testimony on the standard of care, direct liability for failure to monitor or supervise, and vicarious liability based on the broker's apparent authority. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact precluded full summary judgment, that notarization of documents did not impute knowledge of their contents to the firms, and that some claims could proceed while others lacked sufficient support.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure