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.
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 The decision relied on the Federal Savings Statute, which preserves penalties under repealed laws absent express contrary intent, along with Seventh and Second Circuit rulings that the relevant date is the offense conduct rather than sentencing or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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
