James E. Gritzner

This case involves a negligence lawsuit filed by attorneys-in-fact for a nursing home resident, Ms. Stevens, against Urbantus, LLC and Emeritus Corporation after she suffered broken ribs and a collapsed lung while in their dementia care facility, alleging failures in documentation, protocol, staffing, and training following a fall. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the proceedings and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on an Arbitration Agreement signed at the time of admission that covered disputes arising from assisted living services, including those against affiliates and third parties. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable, applicable to the parties and claims here, and involving interstate commerce, with the FAA requiring arbitration rather than judicial resolution. It denied dismissal but granted a stay pending arbitration, reasoning that the statute authorizes a stay and that the agreement's terms governed the resolution of such disputes.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerns U.S. Bank's motion to appoint a receiver over a hotel property in Iowa owned by CB Settle Inn Ltd. Partnership following the borrower's default on an $11.8 million commercial mortgage loan originated in 2005 and later assigned to the plaintiff. After the defendants filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the plaintiff sued in Iowa state court to foreclose and requested a receiver pursuant to explicit consent provisions in the mortgage and assignment of leases documents. The court first determined that service of process on the defendants was valid under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.305(6), then granted the motion, authorizing the receiver to take possession, manage the property, collect rents, and operate the hotel while enjoining interference, with the receivership to continue until sale or dismissal of the action.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In United States v. Engelmann, the defendant, an attorney, was convicted by a jury on nine counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud or wire fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud arising from his involvement in mortgage closings where property prices were inflated on loan documents and kickbacks were paid to buyers without disclosure to lenders. The defendant moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that the court's good faith jury instruction was inadequate and that two FBI agents violated the court's sequestration order under Federal Rule of Evidence 615 by discussing testimony during a recess. The court denied the motion, holding that the good faith instruction was sufficient as given and that any potential sequestration violation caused no prejudice because the agents' testimony was consistent on a collateral matter and the government did not rely on claims of independent testimony in a way that affected the outcome. The court further noted that the evidence of guilt was strong and that the interest of justice did not require vacating the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mosque and its prospective imam challenging USCIS's denial of a Form I-360 petition for a special immigrant religious worker visa. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, ruling that the individual beneficiary lacked standing to contest the denial of an employer-filed petition and that the organization failed to state a viable claim. The core reasoning was that the beneficiary had not maintained lawful immigration status for the two years preceding the petition, as required by regulation, because he had engaged in unauthorized volunteer work and overstayed his B-2 visitor visa. The complaint had also alleged a First Amendment violation, but the court did not reach that issue after finding the regulatory requirements were not met.

immigrationreligious liberty

This case arose from agreements between EMC National Life Co. (EMCNL) and Employee Benefits Systems, Inc. (EBS) involving insurance sales and contributions to an employee's retirement account, which EBS alleged were improperly diverted, leading to consolidated lawsuits including EBS's civil RICO claim against EMCNL. EBS moved for a pretrial ruling on whether amounts it had already recouped from the employee and EMCNL should be credited against any RICO damages before or after trebling. The court declined to decide the issue, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue what would amount to an advisory opinion because no liability had been established and no actual damages had been determined by concession or verdict. The court directed the parties to brief whether the motion was ripe.

criminal lawprocedure

In Andersen v. Khanna, a medical malpractice action was filed in Iowa state court alleging negligence and related consortium claims, with Syngenta Seeds, Inc. later joined as a plaintiff on a subrogation claim under its ERISA health plan after paying some of the plaintiff's medical expenses. After the state court dismissed the subrogation claim on summary judgment, Syngenta attempted to remove the entire case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption and federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the defendants' motion to remand, holding that Syngenta was no longer a party after dismissal of its sole claim, the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and the well-pleaded complaint rule barred federal jurisdiction because the underlying claims were state-law torts not subject to ERISA preemption on the face of the complaint. The ruling stressed that removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed and doubts resolved in favor of remand to state court.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved U.S. Bank, a national bank providing electronic funds transfer services to Iowa state-chartered banks, seeking to operate central routing units for ATM transactions without complying with the Iowa Electronic Transfer of Funds Act's requirements for state approval, public board representation, and examinations. U.S. Bank sued the Iowa Division of Banking and Credit Unions superintendents, arguing that the National Bank Act preempted the state law provisions. The court granted U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment and denied the state's cross-motion, declaring the relevant sections of Iowa Code §§ 527.5 and 527.9 unenforceable against U.S. Bank and issuing a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The core reasoning was that under precedents like Barnett Bank and Watters, the NBA preempts state laws that prevent or significantly interfere with national banks' exercise of their federal powers, including correspondent and data processing services, and the Iowa requirements created such a conflict.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Whitesell International Corporation sued defendant Smith Jones, Inc. for breach of a supply agreement under which Whitesell was to provide custom steel products based on Smith Jones' forecasts; Smith Jones allegedly failed to pay for delivered goods worth over $136,000 and left Whitesell with over $932,000 in unsold inventory. After Smith Jones' counsel withdrew and the company failed to obtain new representation or respond to court orders despite warnings, the court entered default against it. The court granted Whitesell's motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), accepting the complaint's allegations as true and awarding $1,068,757.69 in damages plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest based on evidence presented at the hearing. The decision rested on the procedural consequences of default, which establish liability without further proof, and the plaintiff's demonstration of the amount owed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Sue Evans's challenge under ERISA to United of Omaha Life Insurance Company's denial of her claim for long-term disability benefits after she stopped working due to stress, depression, and anxiety following a workplace confrontation. The court reviewed the plan administrator's decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard, noting the insurer's discretionary authority under the policy and a potential conflict of interest. It found that medical records, including evaluations from treating providers and an independent psychiatrist, along with a file review by a mental health practitioner, provided substantial evidence that Evans was not disabled from performing the material duties of her sedentary office manager occupation. Although the court gave some weight to the conflict of interest, it concluded this factor did not render the denial unreasonable. The court therefore affirmed the denial of benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case is an in rem civil forfeiture action brought by the United States against a 1999 Freightliner Tractor and 2000 Great Dane Trailer under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and CAFRA, following the discovery of 50 kilograms of cocaine hidden in the tractor during a traffic stop. The owner, Ramon Lopez-Disla, who had pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, claimed the trailer but not the tractor. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment as to the tractor, finding it substantially connected to the offense because the drugs were transported in its sleeper compartment, but denied summary judgment as to the trailer because the government failed to show a substantial connection between the trailer—which carried a legitimate load of soap—and the criminal activity. The court concluded that unresolved factual questions remained regarding whether the trailer facilitated the offense.

criminal lawproperty

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute where Mahaska Pork sued Travelers after the insurer denied a claim for damage from the collapse of a hog building's floor, which occurred when a manure pit divider wall failed following pumping and clogging of equalizer openings. Mahaska sought a declaratory judgment that the loss was covered under the policy and alleged breach of contract for failure to pay for building damage, lost income, and related expenses. Travelers moved for summary judgment, relying on the policy's general exclusion for losses caused by collapse except as provided under additional coverage provisions. The court, applying Iowa law in this diversity action, set out the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and examined the relevant policy language excluding collapse while noting exceptions for certain direct physical losses. The court also addressed procedural matters regarding statements of material facts and expert testimony interpretations.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned claims by Home Show Tours, Inc., operator of a for-sale-by-owner real estate website, against Quad City Virtual, Inc. (QCFSBO) and Symmetry Mortgage Corp. for libel per se and per quod, false light, Lanham Act violations, intentional interference with business relationships, and Sherman Act antitrust violations arising from QCFSBO's exclusive advertising and referral agreements, sharing of MLS data, and sponsorship arrangements. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing a lack of supporting evidence or proof of damages, which Home Show opposed by asserting material factual disputes. The court applied the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issues of material fact and held that Home Show had not substantiated its allegations with probative evidence beyond speculation, granting judgment as a matter of law to the defendants. Core reasoning centered on insufficient proof of falsity, causation, antitrust injury, and competitive harm in the relevant market.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a contract dispute between Optimal Interiors, LLC, a software developer, and The HON Company, a furniture manufacturer, over an agreement for HON to distribute Optimal's IOPro software to its educational furniture dealers. HON moved for partial summary judgment to limit the damages Optimal could recover, arguing that claims for lost profits were barred by a contractual provision excluding consequential damages. The court granted the motion in part, holding that the lost profits sought by Optimal were consequential damages under Iowa law because they depended on third-party agreements, and thus were precluded by the agreement's Section 9, while noting that certain defined payment obligations remained at issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a negligence lawsuit filed by Iowa residents Linda and Daniel Lyngholm against out-of-state defendants FedEx, Brent Mendenhall, and LAD Trucking, stemming from a 2008 traffic accident in Nebraska where debris from a tractor-trailer struck Ms. Lyngholm's vehicle and caused her injuries. After removal to the Southern District of Iowa based on diversity jurisdiction, LAD Trucking moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), while FedEx and Mendenhall jointly moved to transfer venue. The court determined that venue was improper as to LAD Trucking under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the accident, the defendant's residency, and initial medical treatment all occurred outside Iowa, with only follow-up care taking place in the district. The opinion analyzes remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), including whether dismissal or transfer to a proper district would serve the interests of justice.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, third-party claimant Robert Starcevic sought to recover a truck and real property that had been ordered forfeited to the United States after his son pleaded guilty to federal drug trafficking and firearms charges and agreed to forfeit the assets. Starcevic asserted that he had provided the purchase funds for the items and therefore held an ownership interest superior to the government's forfeiture claim. The court granted the government's motion to strike the claim and denied the petition. It reasoned that under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), a third party must prove either a superior legal interest in the property or status as a bona fide purchaser for value, and Starcevic had shown neither, as his name was not on any title or lien and he was at best an unsecured creditor.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Margaret Pettit challenging defendant UnumProvident's denial of long-term disability benefits under her employer's plan after she stopped working due to allergic reactions and chemical sensitivities, including to Cidex, along with related mental health conditions. The court reviewed the administrative record, medical evidence from treating physicians regarding her physical restrictions and ability to perform any gainful occupation after the initial 24-month period, and Unum's exercise of discretionary authority as claims administrator. It analyzed whether the denial complied with the plan's definition of disability and ERISA requirements, considering factors such as the weight given to various doctors' opinions on her allergies, rhinitis, and work limitations. The court ultimately assessed the reasonableness of Unum's benefit determination based on the evidence in the record.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over a hog financing and feeding arrangement under which Producers Livestock provided funding to Prairie Pork through a Hog Program Agreement, Lakeside Feeders was hired to manage the hogs, and questions arose regarding ownership of the animals, marketing rights, and liability for losses after the hogs were sold. Lakeside sued Producers, asserting claims including negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The court granted Producers' motion for summary judgment, holding that Producers owed no duty of care to Lakeside because it was not in the business or profession of supplying information. The court further found that Lakeside could not establish the elements of false representation or justifiable reliance for the misrepresentation claim, and addressed related issues of unjust enrichment and priority in proceeds without finding liability.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved David Ferezy's claim that Wells Fargo violated Iowa Code § 91A.5 by deducting employee wages for charitable contributions via payroll without those deductions accruing to the direct benefit of the employees, brought as a potential class action on behalf of participating employees. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the statutory interpretation issue after Ferezy opted into the program for donations to groups like the United Way. The court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo, holding that the deductions were permitted under § 91A.5(1)(b) because the statute's reference to a "lawful purpose accruing to the benefit of the employee" encompasses charitable donations authorized in writing by the employee. The reasoning centered on the plain meaning of the statutory text, dictionary definitions of "accrue" that do not limit benefits to tangible financial gains, and the absence of any Iowa authority prohibiting such common payroll practices.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a contract dispute in which Iowa-based Wells Fargo Financial Leasing sued Florida-based NCH Healthcare System for payments allegedly due under a printer maintenance agreement that non-party AXSA had assigned to Wells Fargo. NCH moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), contending that the forum-selection clause on the reverse side of the 2009 agreement was unenforceable because it was unsigned, AXSA had fraudulently induced NCH to sign, and NCH lacked sufficient contacts with Iowa. The court reviewed the 2007 and 2009 agreements, the addenda, the bill of sale, NCH’s knowledge of the assignment, and Iowa contract principles, finding that NCH had not pleaded facts sufficient to establish fraudulent inducement and that the forum-selection clause and other factors supported proceeding in Iowa.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Nathan Hays' claims against his employer, Communication Technologies, Inc. (Comtek), under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) after Comtek terminated his employment as an ROTC instructor following a canceled military mobilization. Hays had provided written and telephonic notice of his planned military leave starting in early 2008, but his activation was canceled due to his wife's illness; he did not immediately contact Comtek upon return, leading to a dispute with his supervisor and a termination letter citing both failure to follow USERRA reemployment guidelines and unprofessional conduct. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment by reviewing the material facts, including leave requests and communications, and applied the standard that summary judgment is proper only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Core reasoning centered on whether Hays satisfied USERRA's advance notice requirement for reemployment protection and whether any exception, such as impossibility or unreasonableness, applied to the reemployment obligation.

labor & employment