Karen E. Schreier

This case involved First Premier Bank challenging a 2011 amendment to Regulation Z by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which extended limits on credit card fees charged in the first year to also include fees charged prior to account opening. The bank sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the amendment from taking effect on October 1, 2011, arguing that the regulation exceeded the authority granted by the Credit CARD Act. The court granted the injunction, finding that the statute specifically referred only to fees during the first year after the account is opened and did not authorize the Board or Bureau to regulate pre-opening fees paid outside the credit line, rendering the amendment invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a constitutional challenge by Planned Parenthood and a physician to South Dakota House Bill 1217, which imposes new requirements for obtaining an abortion including mandatory consultation with a registered pregnancy help center, a 72-hour waiting period after an initial physician consultation, physician certification regarding coercion, and specific disclosures about abortion risks and complications. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the Act on grounds that it violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court applied the Dataphase factors for injunctive relief, with particular focus on the likelihood of success on the merits for each provision, noting that similar requirements have not been upheld elsewhere and analyzing issues such as compelled speech, vagueness, and undue burden. The opinion examines the Pregnancy Help Center Requirements, 72-Hour Requirement, Coercion Provisions, and Risk Factors Requirement in turn to determine whether plaintiffs are likely to prevail.

abortionfree speechcivil rights

Shirley Berry purchased a nursing home insurance policy from Time Insurance (administered by Hancock) that included a provision for alternate home care if the parties agreed on a plan. After a fall requiring home healthcare, Berry alleged that Hancock initially misinformed her about licensing requirements (not stated in the policy), refused coverage for her chosen providers, and failed to negotiate in good faith, leading her to pay out of pocket and file suit for breach of contract and bad faith, along with claims for punitive damages and attorney's fees. Time and Hancock moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing no enforceable obligation due to unmet conditions precedent. The court denied the motion, holding that Berry's factual allegations, taken as true with inferences in her favor, stated plausible claims under South Dakota law for breach and bad faith sufficient to support the additional relief requests.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In Hughbanks v. Dooley, a prisoner at Mike Durfee State Prison filed a pro se § 1983 civil rights suit challenging the South Dakota Department of Corrections' policy banning bulk-rate mail, including catalogs, as a violation of his First Amendment rights, and alleging that the lack of notice or appeal process for rejected mail violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. He sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit using postage rates to screen mail and to require sender notifications with appeal rights, plus appointment of counsel. The court denied the injunction after analyzing the Dataphase factors, finding a low likelihood of success on the merits due to the deference afforded prison officials in managing security and operations, while the conceded irreparable harm from any First Amendment violation was outweighed by institutional interests; it also found no protected liberty interest for due process purposes and denied counsel because the plaintiff had adequately presented his claims. The decision rested on established precedent requiring judicial restraint in prison administration matters.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

In Boddicker v. Esurance Inc., the plaintiff, a military veteran, sued his former employer for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act after resigning due to PTSD-related issues. The court initially granted partial summary judgment to the defendant on the COBRA claim, concluding that a third-party administrator handled COBRA notices. On the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), the court determined that the defendant had misrepresented its own role as the COBRA plan administrator in earlier filings and that new evidence showed genuine issues of material fact. The court granted the motion, vacated the summary judgment order on the COBRA claim, denied summary judgment because factual disputes remained on the administrator's identity and potential damages, and ordered a bench trial on that claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Haggar v. United States, the personal representatives of William Haggar's estate sued to recover an IRS penalty assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(b)(1) after the estate tax return incorrectly stated that no prior gift tax returns had been filed, despite Mr. Haggar having made substantial gifts in 1998 that were reported on a gift tax return his wife had signed. The plaintiffs argued they lacked knowledge of the 1998 return and thus had reasonable cause and acted in good faith when answering the question negatively. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and the government's request for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the plaintiffs had reasonable cause for the error and acted in good faith when preparing and filing the return. The decision rested on the need for a trial to assess credibility and weigh the evidence about the plaintiffs' knowledge and efforts to verify the information.

taxesprocedure

The case involved Wayne Smith, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who emigrated from the United Kingdom, challenging South Dakota's requirement under SDCL 23-7-7.1(8) that applicants for a concealed pistol permit be U.S. citizens after his application was denied solely on that basis. The court consolidated the requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and held an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the injunction, concluding that the citizenship requirement was unconstitutional as applied to Smith because it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The core reasoning was that classifications based on alienage are suspect and trigger strict scrutiny, under which the state failed to demonstrate that the requirement was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, distinguishing Smith's status as a permanent resident from illegal aliens.

gunscivil rightsimmigration

In George v. EZMoney South Dakota, Inc., plaintiff Carly George sued her former employer under Title VII, alleging that her supervisor created a hostile work environment through daily vulgar language, demeaning comments targeted at female employees, and specific remarks about her appearance, and that the company retaliated after she complained. EZMoney moved for summary judgment on both the hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive and based on sex, as the supervisor's behavior differed toward male and female employees. The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim because George failed to check the retaliation box on her administrative complaint to the South Dakota Division of Human Rights, did not allege supporting facts, and did not respond to the defendant's arguments on exhaustion of remedies.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Ryan Boddicker sued his former employer Esurance for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), claiming issues with intermittent and extended medical leave for PTSD following military service and failure to receive a COBRA health insurance continuation notice after resignation. The court denied Esurance's summary judgment motion on the FMLA interference claim because genuine issues of material fact existed about whether Esurance denied Boddicker protected leave entitlements. It granted summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim, the USERRA claim (which Boddicker conceded), and the COBRA claim on the grounds that Esurance fulfilled its obligations by delegating notice duties to an independent administrator and had no legal duty to oversee delivery.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In this employment discrimination case, Michelleé Mutua, an African-American server, sued Texas Roadhouse and two managers alleging race-based discrimination, retaliation for reporting customer discrimination and internal complaints, and breach of contract under federal and South Dakota laws. The court denied summary judgment on her hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the South Dakota Human Rights Act, and allowed her punitive damages request to proceed, but granted summary judgment dismissing her disparate treatment and breach of contract claims. The core reasoning was that Mutua presented sufficient evidence of ongoing racial incidents, inadequate management response, and retaliatory discipline leading to termination to create triable issues, while the employee handbook provisions did not form an implied contract because they merely restated preexisting legal duties under antidiscrimination statutes.

civil rightslabor & employment

Larry Jelsma sued the City of Sioux Falls alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Family Medical Leave Act after his supervisors pressured him to retire early at age 60 due to a shoulder injury and planned surgery, instead of providing continued light duty or FMLA leave. The City moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether Jelsma could perform the essential functions of his building maintenance position with reasonable accommodations under the ADA, whether the City's proffered reasons were pretext for age discrimination, and whether the City retaliated for FMLA-protected activity. The court noted that FMLA and ADA protections dovetail to require reinstatement to an equivalent position with accommodations absent undue hardship, and that disputes remained over which job duties were essential versus marginal.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Anaya, the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in violation of federal law and moved to suppress statements made during interviews with FBI agents on December 10, 2008, and March 12, 2009. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopting findings that the first interview was non-custodial and thus did not require Miranda warnings, while the second interview included complete and accurate Miranda advisements with a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. The court further determined that both sets of statements were voluntary and not subject to suppression. It therefore denied the defendant's motion to suppress in full.

criminal lawprocedure

In Moberly v. Midcontinent Communication, plaintiff Denise Moberly brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII against her employer after a consensual romantic relationship with her supervisor ended and she was terminated. The court granted summary judgment in part on the hostile work environment claim, finding that Moberly failed to follow the company's reporting policy and that the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment. The court denied summary judgment on the quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation claims, concluding that factual disputes existed over whether adverse actions like her termination were motivated by her rejection of the supervisor's advances or by legitimate performance concerns.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned Sharon McElgunn's bad faith claim against CUNA Mutual Insurance Society on behalf of Teri Powell's estate, after Powell's credit disability insurance benefits were initially denied as untimely, then reinstated but delayed until shortly after Powell's death from cancer. Following dismissal of the breach of contract claim, the jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages. Defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing errors in admitting evidence of prior claims handling and policy ambiguity, improper jury instructions, excessive damages, and other trial issues. The court evaluated these under standards for new trials, evidence rules like 404(b), and due process limits on punitive awards, focusing on whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or caused a miscarriage of justice.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Sancom, a competitive local exchange carrier, and AT&T, an interexchange carrier, over whether Sancom provided qualifying switched access services under its federal and state tariffs when routing calls from AT&T customers to free calling providers such as conference calling companies. Sancom sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal communications statutes, seeking over $5 million in unpaid charges, while AT&T counterclaimed alleging improper traffic pumping, tariff violations, and related misconduct. The court stayed the proceedings and referred several issues—including the proper interpretation of tariff terms like “end user” and “switched access service,” and whether the services met regulatory requirements—to the Federal Communications Commission. The referral was based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the need for uniform FCC guidance amid numerous similar cases nationwide, and the agency’s expertise in applying its own regulations to these access charge disputes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves local exchange carriers suing telecommunications companies to recover access charges under tariffs filed with the FCC and South Dakota regulators for switched access services. Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of a prior summary judgment order that found none of the defendants had formally subscribed to services via access orders and that TNCI, Global Crossing, and Sprint did not constructively order services, while leaving issues open for Onvoy. The court denied the motion, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or satisfy the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and that their new affirmative ordering arguments were untimely.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Sancom's motion to strike large portions of expert reports and disclosures by Qwest's witnesses Owens and Canfield in a telecommunications services dispute. The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards to assess the experts' qualifications, the reliability of their methods, and whether their opinions improperly offered legal conclusions rather than connecting facts to law. It partially granted the motion by striking sections that merely recited statutes, FCC rules, or tariff terms without analysis, but denied it for portions where the experts properly linked applicable legal standards to the case facts and demonstrated industry expertise. The decision rested on Rule 704 allowing opinions on ultimate issues while barring pure legal testimony, along with the requirement that expert evidence assist the factfinder.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves Stephen C. Rowland's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits for the period from April 29, 2002, through February 15, 2005. The Commissioner had found Rowland disabled beginning February 15, 2005, but not before that date based on his impairments including dementia. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the Commissioner erred by failing to consider evidence from lay witnesses when determining that Rowland's dementia was not severe prior to February 15, 2005.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves South Dakota local exchange carriers suing interexchange carriers including Global Crossing, Sprint, Onvoy, and TNCI to recover unpaid access charges for long-distance traffic routed through their networks and SDN's tandem switch, as required by tariffs filed with the FCC and SDPUC. The dispute centers on which party is responsible for the charges associated with traffic originated by Express customers, involving contracts between Express, Onvoy, and others, as well as third-party claims. The court ruled on multiple cross-motions for summary judgment, finding in part that TNCI was not liable because it was not interconnected with the plaintiffs under the tariff terms and constructive ordering doctrine. Core reasoning relied on the plain language of the applicable tariffs, the nature of the traffic routing, and whether parties had ordered or used the access services.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a constitutional challenge by Planned Parenthood and a physician to South Dakota's 2005 informed consent statute for abortions, which requires physicians to make specific disclosures to patients including a biological statement that abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being, relationship disclosures, and medical risk disclosures. After prior appellate rulings, the district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining issues under the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment upholding the biological disclosure and the medical emergency exception, finding they were truthful, non-misleading, and relevant, but struck down the relationship disclosures as unconstitutional; it split on the medical risk disclosures, upholding some and invalidating others based on whether they were supported by evidence of truthfulness and relevance. The rulings turned on whether the mandated statements compelled physicians to convey the state's viewpoint without violating their speech rights or misleading patients.

abortionfree speech