Linda R. Reade

This case is an appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court ruling allowing debtor Doylene K. Roberts to claim a homestead exemption on a California property (the Newport Beach Property) under Iowa law in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. The trustee argued that the exemption was unavailable because Iowa's homestead exemption lacks extraterritorial effect and because the debtor had abandoned the property after leaving it in 2004 amid marital issues, moving to Iowa, and at times expressing intent to sell. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that Iowa's homestead exemption applies to out-of-state property in federal bankruptcy proceedings and that the debtor had not abandoned the homestead under Iowa law given the involuntary nature of her departure and her ongoing intent to return. The court rejected the trustee's reliance on cases like Sipka and distinguished Rogers, while noting that practical barriers to return did not equate to abandonment.

propertyprocedure

In United States v. Davis, the defendant faced a 2010 indictment charging conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and money laundering, based on conduct from 1997 to 2006. He moved to strike the 50-gram quantity as surplusage after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the threshold for mandatory minimums to 280 grams. The court denied the motion, holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively to criminal conduct predating its August 2010 enactment. The decision relied on the Federal Savings Statute, which preserves penalties under repealed laws absent express contrary intent, along with Seventh and Second Circuit rulings that the relevant date is the offense conduct rather than sentencing or indictment, even in pipeline cases. The court therefore applied pre-FSA mandatory minimums if the defendant were convicted.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Dr. Ralph Reeder against Dr. Thomas Carroll for slander, libel, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy, arising from a letter Dr. Carroll sent to the Iowa Board of Medicine regarding concerns about Dr. Reeder's medical practice. The court granted Dr. Carroll's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that Dr. Carroll was protected by statutory immunity under Iowa law for reports to the medical board and by qualified privilege, and there was no evidence of actual malice to overcome those protections.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a dispute between PSK, LLC, which operates an Overhead Door franchise selling and servicing garage doors in Iowa, and the Hicklins, who run competing garage door businesses using the term 'overhead' in their advertisements and names. PSK sued under the Lanham Act for service mark infringement, unfair competition through passing off and false advertising, as well as related state law claims, alleging that the Hicklins' use of 'overhead' caused customer confusion. The court granted the Hicklins' motion for summary judgment, holding that 'overhead' is a generic term that cannot function as a protectable trademark. It further found no secondary meaning in the mark, no likelihood of confusion based on the multi-factor test, and insufficient evidence to support the unfair competition or false advertising claims.

business & regulatory

This case involved the sentencing of defendant Sholom Rubashkin following his conviction on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to harbor undocumented workers for profit, bank fraud, and related offenses arising from his operation of the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant. The court determined the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines range by calculating the amount of loss from the bank fraud scheme, applying enhancements for sophisticated means, leadership role in the offense, and other factors under Chapters Two and Three of the US Sentencing Guidelines. It also addressed money laundering enhancements and considered whether upward or downward departures or a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) were warranted before imposing the sentence. The reasoning focused on foreseeability of losses to victim banks and suppliers, the intricate nature of the fraudulent transactions involving falsified documents and diverted payments, and the defendant's central role in directing the criminal conduct.

criminal lawimmigrationbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Mahala Neessen's claims against Arona Corporation under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, alleging that Arona failed to rehire her for a customer service position at its Waterloo store after she took maternity leave, despite her prior employment with the store's previous owner. Arona moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of a prima facie case, a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her, absence of pretext, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court denied the motion, finding that Neessen belonged to a protected class, that a position was available, that an inference of discrimination arose from Arona hiring another employee instead, and that evidence raised a triable issue on pretext; it also held that she had properly exhausted her claims by providing sufficient notice in her administrative filings. The ruling allows the case to proceed to trial on the discrimination allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a financing dispute over medical equipment, in which VGM Financial Services sued Singh in Iowa state court for amounts due under a lease, Singh removed the case to federal court and asserted counterclaims against VGM, and Singh also filed third-party claims against Cynosure (the equipment seller) for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of warranty, and indemnity. Cynosure moved to dismiss the amended third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court applied the prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction, reviewed evidence in the light most favorable to Singh, and analyzed whether Cynosure was subject to jurisdiction in Iowa based on judicial estoppel, forum-selection clauses in the lease and guaranty, Cynosure's other financed transactions in the state, and the passive nature of its website listing Iowa practitioners.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a construction contract dispute after a tornado destroyed work on a senior housing project in Iowa, leading to a mechanic's lien foreclosure action in state court, arbitration between Samuels and Hatch, and a subsequent federal lawsuit by Samuels seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Defendant Hatch moved to dismiss or abstain, arguing that the federal action duplicated parallel state proceedings. The court found the proceedings sufficiently parallel despite Samuels's dismissal and re-entry as intervenor in state court, applied the Colorado River abstention factors, and concluded that exceptional circumstances—including the threat of piecemeal litigation, state-court priority, and state-law issues—warranted deference to the state forum. It therefore stayed the federal case rather than dismissing it, directing the parties to report on the status of the state proceedings.

procedurefederal power

This case involves the federal government's civil forfeiture action against two life insurance policy proceeds totaling over $760,000, which it alleges are traceable to offenses committed by Sholom Rubashkin at Agriprocessors, including conspiracy to harbor undocumented aliens for profit and related money laundering. Claimant Aaron Rubashkin Trust moved for summary judgment, arguing the property was not forfeitable and that the Trust was an innocent owner. The court analyzed whether harboring qualifies as a specified unlawful activity under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, whether cost savings from employing undocumented workers constitute forfeitable proceeds, and whether there was a substantial connection between the property and the crimes. It concluded that such cost savings can qualify as proceeds and that the government had shown a sufficient link for forfeiture purposes, while also addressing procedural issues and the innocent-owner defense.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal power

In United States v. Woods, the defendant pled guilty to receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) after images from the 'Vicky Series' were found on his computer; the government sought restitution on behalf of the victim for therapy costs, expenses, and attorney fees totaling over $200,000. The court examined whether restitution was mandatory or discretionary under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 and the Victim and Witness Protection Act, focusing on the requirement of proximate causation between the defendant's conduct and the victim's losses. After reviewing psychological evidence of the victim's ongoing harms from widespread dissemination of the images, the court concluded that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's specific actions proximately caused the claimed losses, as opposed to the cumulative actions of many viewers. Accordingly, the court declined to order any restitution, while noting that such awards could be appropriate in other cases with sufficient proof.

criminal lawprocedure

In Myers v. Croell Redi-Mix, Inc., plaintiff Lois K. Myers sued her former employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was terminated because of her sex, that the termination was retaliatory, that she suffered disparate treatment, and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Myers failed to produce evidence supporting her claims. The court granted the motion after analyzing the record under the McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination and retaliation claims, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of sex-based termination or retaliation, no evidence of disparate treatment, and insufficient evidence that any harassment was severe or pervasive or that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of it. The court also addressed and denied the defendant's motion to strike certain affidavits but concluded that even considering those materials, no genuine issues of material fact existed.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves the sentencing of defendant Casey Bastian, who pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of receipt of child pornography. The court determines the pre-departure adjusted offense level under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines by applying enhancements for distribution for a thing of value, a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, use of a computer, and possession of 600 or more images, while addressing objections to acceptance of responsibility and the defendant's criminal history category. The reasoning centers on factual findings from the record, including the defendant's conduct with minors and digital files, combined with interpretations of USSG §§ 2G2.2 and 4B1.5 and their application alongside 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to arrive at the advisory range and disposition.

criminal law

In Carton v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, plaintiffs injured in a car accident sued the lessor of the vehicle, GMAC, asserting vicarious liability under Iowa law for the driver's negligence and also claiming GMAC was directly negligent in failing to repossess the vehicle after default or ensure the driver's fitness. GMAC moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court held that diversity jurisdiction existed but granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the federal Graves Amendment preempted the state vicarious liability claims and that the negligence claims fell outside the Amendment's savings clause for criminal acts or maintenance failures. The decision turned on federal preemption analysis, choice-of-law determinations, and statutory interpretation of both the Graves Amendment and Iowa Code § 321.493 regarding vehicle ownership after a replevin judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiff Martin Onken's claims against his former employer, McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc., alleging that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act due to his diabetes. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Onken was not a qualified individual under the ADA. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. It reasoned that Onken posed a direct threat to workplace safety because of uncontrolled hypoglycemic episodes at the plant, including one in which he lost consciousness while operating heavy machinery, rendering him unqualified for ADA protection.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the sentencing of Michael James Kluge, who was convicted by a jury of conspiring to manufacture 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The court calculated Kluge's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, determining that he qualified as a career offender based on two prior felony convictions for third-degree burglary and eluding, applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice due to threats against cooperating witnesses, and declined reductions for role in the offense or acceptance of responsibility. After evaluating the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court imposed a sentence of 360 months imprisonment at the bottom of the resulting 360 months to life range and denied Kluge's motions for a variance and for a sentence reduction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the sentencing of defendant Kevin J. Kruse, who pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) for crossing state lines with intent to engage in sexual acts with children under age 12. The court calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying enhancements for factors such as the victims' ages, custody/control, distribution of images, multiple counts, and the defendant's criminal history, along with upward departures under USSG §§ 4A1.3 and 5K2.21. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, including the seriousness of the offense, victim impact, and need for just punishment, the court imposed a sentence of 470 months imprisonment on Count 1.

criminal law

The case involves the EEOC's lawsuit against CRST Van Expedited, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under federal law on behalf of several employees, including Monika Starke, Christina Payne, and Robin Timmons. CRST moved for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel, arguing that these women filed for bankruptcy after the alleged harassment but did not disclose their potential claims against CRST, received debt discharges or repayment plans, and were now seeking damages in this action. The court granted the motion, dismissing Starke's claims with prejudice and barring the EEOC from seeking relief on behalf of Payne and Timmons. The reasoning centered on the doctrine of judicial estoppel applying to the inconsistent positions taken in bankruptcy proceedings, rejecting arguments that the defense was waived or that the EEOC was categorically immune from its effects based on the individuals' prior conduct.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit against CRST Van Expedited, Inc. alleging sexual harassment of multiple female truck drivers by their lead trainers. The court addressed CRST's motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. It ruled that the EEOC could not seek relief for harassment claims occurring before February 4, 2005 for most of the women because the charges were untimely under the 300-day period applicable after initial filing with a state agency, and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to revive the expired claims. An exception was allowed for one allegation by Ms. Carney against a specific trainer.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves the EEOC's lawsuit against CRST Van Expedited, Inc., alleging a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female truck drivers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court considered CRST's motion for summary judgment on the EEOC's pattern-or-practice claim, distinguishing between enforcement actions under §§ 706 and 707 and noting that standard burden-shifting frameworks from Teamsters do not apply directly to hostile work environment claims. After examining CRST's anti-harassment policies, reporting procedures, disciplinary responses, and evidence of harassment incidents, the court determined that the EEOC had not presented sufficient evidence to establish a company-wide pattern or practice of discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerns First Bank's lawsuit against Agriprocessors, its subsidiary Local Pride, and guarantors Aaron and Sholom Rubashkin to recover approximately $33.5 million plus interest on a defaulted revolving loan secured by collateral, based on alleged breaches, diversion of collateral, and fraud by the borrowers. First Bank asserted claims on the note and the guaranties and sought appointment of a receiver. After Agriprocessors filed for bankruptcy, the remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss that raised improper venue among other issues. The court held that Local Pride and Aaron Rubashkin waived any venue objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 by failing to timely present it, instead requesting additional time only to answer or assert privileges. The decision rests on established principles that venue defenses must be asserted promptly or they are waived by implication.

business & regulatoryprocedure