Michael Joseph Melloy

In this case, Roger and Denice Bergfeld sued Lockheed-Martin Corporation, a supplier of industrial sand, alleging that the company caused Roger Bergfeld's silicosis through its sales of bulk sand to his employer, John Deere Dubuque Works Foundry, between 1976 and 1983. The complaint included counts for failure to warn, strict liability, negligence, and loss of consortium, based on claims that Lockheed-Martin should have notified the foundry of recommended exposure limits below OSHA standards. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts. The ruling rested on the conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact existed because the foundry, as a sophisticated purchaser aware of silicosis risks through regulations, industry knowledge, and prior experience, bore the duty to warn its employees, and the sand supplier reasonably relied on the employer to fulfill that role under standards like Restatement Section 388.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Marcus David Weems, an African American man, asserting federal and state civil rights claims against his former employer Federated Mutual Insurance for alleged racial discrimination in employment, including discriminatory discharge, along with state tort claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the company and two employees. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, citing untimeliness under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, procedural and jurisdictional defects, preemption of the emotional distress claim, and failure of the assault claim as a matter of law. Plaintiff conceded that his Iowa Civil Rights Act claims were untimely and did not resist summary judgment on those counts. The court recited the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and began analyzing the remaining federal discrimination claim for direct evidence of bias as well as the tort claims on substantive grounds.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether debtor Robert Pepmeyer's individual retirement annuity, valued at $31,000, qualified as an exempt asset under Iowa Code § 627.6(8)(f) when he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the annuity was not exempt. The court held that the statutory term 'individual retirement accounts' includes individual retirement annuities, based on parallel definitions in the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. § 408 and legislative history showing an intent to provide uniform exemptions for federally authorized retirement plans.

propertyprocedure

The case involved JoDee Flockhart's claims against Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. for sexual discrimination under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, alleging constructive discharge due to ongoing sexual harassment by co-workers and supervisors as well as receiving lower pay than male peers for equal work. After a trial, the court issued findings of fact detailing specific incidents of touching, verbal abuse, and a hostile work environment in the supply department, along with the company's chain of command and notice issues. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her equal pay claim but found liability on the harassment and constructive discharge claims based on the pervasive conduct and inadequate employer response. The decision awarded damages accordingly under the applicable statutes.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this diversity case, car dealerships Mike Finnin Ford and Mike Finnin Motors sued Automatic Data Processing (ADP) for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, alleging ADP failed to deliver promised RMS marketing software and other services under a 1997-1998 contract amendment, while ADP counterclaimed for defamation. ADP moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal or limits on the plaintiffs' claims. The court granted the motion in part on the contract and warranty claims, holding that contract provisions limited damages for the undelivered RMS software, that no training or consolidated accounting obligations were breached, and that warranty claims on accounting software failed. It denied summary judgment on the fraud claims, reasoning that evidence raised a genuine issue whether ADP knowingly misrepresented RMS availability at contracting, and it refused to limit fraud damages to contract terms because an independent duty not to induce agreements by fraud cannot be waived by contract language.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether an insurer's cancellation of a keyman life insurance policy held by a Chapter 11 debtor violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The debtor had filed for bankruptcy in January 1998, borrowed against the policy's cash value later that year, missed subsequent premium payments, and the policy lapsed under its own terms after grace periods and conversion to term coverage, with the insured dying in December 1999. The bankruptcy court had granted partial summary judgment to the debtor, finding a stay violation, but the district court reversed on de novo review. It held that the cancellation resulted from the debtor's failure to pay premiums rather than any affirmative acts by the insurer that exercised control over estate property, and that 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) did not extend the policy's contractual grace periods. The case was remanded for remaining issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

St. Luke's Methodist Hospital sought judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of an exception to Medicare cost limits for its skilled nursing facility in 1992, claiming entitlement to reimbursement for atypical services under 42 C.F.R. § 413.30. The hospital had received such exceptions in prior years based on the statutory routine cost limit, but the Secretary applied a new, higher threshold from PRM § 2534.5, which required costs to exceed 112% of the peer group mean for hospital-based facilities. The court treated the matter as cross-motions for summary judgment and granted St. Luke's motion, holding that PRM § 2534.5 is an invalid interpretation of the regulation. The core reasoning was that the new rule was unreasonable given the plain language of 42 C.F.R. § 413.30 and the underlying principles of the Medicare statute, warranting less deference under relevant case law.

healthcare

In this case, debtors Myron and Ellen Kloubec, operating a fish farm business, appealed a bankruptcy court order converting their Chapter 12 reorganization proceedings to a Chapter 7 liquidation. The bankruptcy court found that the debtors had engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting their assets, improperly claiming exemptions, transferring property to family members, and granting unperfected liens to relatives, all of which hindered creditors including Farmers Savings Bank. The district court affirmed the conversion under 11 U.S.C. § 1208(d), holding that the bankruptcy court's factual findings of knowing misrepresentations intended to deceive creditors were not clearly erroneous. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the appellate record but did not alter the outcome on the conversion motion.

business & regulatory

Walker Manufacturing, Inc. sued Hoffmann, Inc., its president, and related parties over the alleged misappropriation of proprietary drawings and trade secrets for self-propelled crop sprayers, asserting federal copyright, trade dress, and RICO claims along with state-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the RICO count under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and the parallel Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff could not establish the required continuity element of a pattern of racketeering activity. The alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud and theft spanned a finite period that ended with a preliminary injunction, showing neither open-ended nor closed-ended continuity under controlling Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court precedents.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In this patent infringement action, Engineered Products Company sued Donaldson Company alleging that its Air Alert and NG Air Alert air filter restriction indicators infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,445,456, along with related trade dress claims, while Donaldson admitted infringement on the earlier device but asserted defenses of estoppel, laches, waiver, and invalidity, and disputed infringement on the later device. The district court addressed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on equitable defenses, patent validity, infringement, trade dress, and counterclaims for false advertising and unfair competition. Applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court first resolved issues not requiring claim construction before turning to patent claim construction under precedents such as Markman and Vitronics to determine the scope of the asserted claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Campbell v. Amana Co., LP, former employees sued their employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging they were selected for termination during a reduction in force because of their age. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had signed releases waiving such claims, while the plaintiffs cross-moved, arguing the releases were invalid under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. The court held that the releases were unenforceable because the termination program involved more than 130 employees and therefore triggered OWBPA disclosure requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(F)(ii) and (H) that the defendants had not satisfied. Those provisions require employers to provide written information about the class of employees covered, eligibility factors, and time limits, which were not furnished here. Because the releases failed to meet these statutory conditions, they could not bar the plaintiffs' federal age-discrimination claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an appeal from the bankruptcy court in a Chapter 11 proceeding concerning the priority of two federal tax liens filed by the IRS in 1989 over security interests claimed by Lincoln Savings Bank in the debtor's property. The bankruptcy court had ruled that the tax liens attached to the debtor's assets and took priority over the bank's post-confirmation advances, which were not perfected or provided for under the confirmed reorganization plan. The district court affirmed, holding that the confirmed plan terminated the bank's pre-confirmation liens once the original debts were paid and did not authorize new security interests for post-confirmation loans. Under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(c), the debtor's property was free and clear of any interests not specified in the plan, and the bank's reliance on an earlier financing statement failed to perfect its claims. The court also rejected the bank's arguments based on case law distinguishing situations where plans explicitly preserved such interests.

taxesbusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved ACT suing Sylvan for allegedly tortiously interfering with ACT's contracts and business relationships with NASD and Regents College in the computer-based testing market, as well as claims that Sylvan monopolized or attempted to monopolize that market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court granted summary judgment to Sylvan on the three tortious interference counts, finding no genuine issues of material fact to support them. It denied summary judgment on the two antitrust counts, concluding that the record presented triable issues regarding Sylvan's market power, willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, anticompetitive conduct, specific intent, and dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. The court also denied summary judgment on damages, determining that ACT's claims for lost profits were not too speculative to preclude a jury determination.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerns a putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that AEGON and its subsidiaries engaged in a fraudulent scheme to market and sell whole life insurance policies by misrepresenting them as retirement, savings, or college funding plans through various sales materials and agent presentations. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), arguing insufficient particularity in the fraud allegations and failure to state valid claims, after the case was transferred from Florida to the Northern District of Iowa. The court analyzed choice-of-law issues, applied Iowa law including the economic loss doctrine to contract-related tort claims, and evaluated the viability of counts such as fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, while noting that some equitable claims would be addressed later.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a claim by Alice Abkes on behalf of her son Anthony for survivor’s child’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act based on the earnings record of Robin L. Warren, who died shortly after Anthony's birth. The Commissioner of Social Security denied the benefits, finding that Anthony did not qualify as Warren's child due to insufficient proof of paternity and dependency under applicable Iowa law. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the denial, concluding that the evidence supported the finding that paternity was not established in a manner satisfying the statutory requirements and that the use of Iowa's intestacy laws did not violate equal protection principles. The court dismissed the complaint after finding no objections to the report and recommendation.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal power

This case arose from failed negotiations for IBP to acquire FDL's hog slaughtering operations after FDL received a better offer from Farmland. IBP sued for specific performance of a merger agreement, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud, alleging FDL improperly backed out and failed to disclose environmental problems at the Dubuque facility. The court had previously denied IBP's request for injunctive relief and specific performance after a bench trial. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining damages claims, the court ruled for FDL, holding that IBP had terminated the original merger agreement, no new enforceable contract was formed, and IBP could not establish the reliance element necessary for its fraud claim because it had learned of the environmental issues yet continued pursuing the deal.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

The case involves Carol R. Cripe's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging disability due to rheumatoid arthritis beginning in March 1992. The Commissioner denied the claim, with an ALJ concluding that the plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past work as a packager. The district court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for a determination of benefits. The court reasoned that the ALJ improperly discounted the treating rheumatologist's opinions on multiple impairments, which were supported by the medical record, and that the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert omitted key limitations that would preclude employment.

healthcarefederal power

The case involves Sandra J. Branson's appeal of the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits under Title II, claiming disability due to depression and degenerative disc disease in her spine. The court upheld the ALJ's findings regarding the plaintiff's physical impairments and pain but found that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hansen, regarding her mental impairments. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision, determining that there was not substantial evidence to support the finding that the plaintiff was not mentally disabled, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits, noting that the vocational expert's hypothetical did not adequately account for her mental limitations.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves an appeal by Maquoketa State Bank from a bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to convert the Hayes debtors' Chapter 13 bankruptcy case to Chapter 7. The Bank sought conversion to allow a trustee to avoid a mortgage on the debtors' residence and potentially recover assets for unsecured creditors. The district court held that the bankruptcy court's order was not a final order appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The court further declined to grant discretionary leave to appeal under § 158(a)(3), reasoning that the order did not involve a controlling question of law warranting immediate review and that a fuller record would develop after Chapter 13 plan confirmation.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

Katherine Thorson sued her former employer Gemini, Inc., alleging that her termination violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by counting her absences due to illness against her under a no-fault attendance policy. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the court considered whether Thorson's stomach illness qualified as a "serious health condition" under the FMLA regulations, which require incapacity for more than three consecutive calendar days and treatment by a health care provider on two or more occasions. The court granted summary judgment to Thorson on liability, finding that her condition met these criteria despite being characterized as an upset stomach or minor ulcer, based on the facts of her medical visits, prescriptions, and tests.

labor & employment