Robert W. Pratt

In United States v. Shipley, the defendant, who had pled guilty to receipt of child pornography and been sentenced to incarceration followed by supervised release with various special conditions, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify or strike several conditions related to computer use, camera possession, contact with minors, and treatment. The court granted the motion in part by revising the computer and internet restriction to require prior probation officer approval along with monitoring and disclosure rules, but denied the remaining requests. The core reasoning was that conditions of supervised release must be reasonably related to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, involve no greater liberty deprivation than necessary, avoid unconstitutional vagueness, and permit only limited delegation to the probation office, with the other challenges deemed unripe because the defendant had not yet begun supervision and presented only hypothetical concerns.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns a contract dispute between Archer Daniels Midland Company and two Eco entities over the supply and warranties for equipment installed in ADM's Iowa cogeneration plant. ADM and Old Eco reached an agreement in July 2005 following proposals that included warranty terms limiting liability to one year from delivery or startup and excluding consequential damages; after Old Eco sold assets to Eco 2007, the parties disputed which entity bore responsibility for any claims. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, examining whether the warranty disclaimers were incorporated into the contract, the timing of any breach notice, and whether Eco 2007 assumed Old Eco's liabilities under exceptions to the general rule of successor non-liability in Iowa law, such as through express or implied agreement in the asset purchase agreement. The opinion analyzes factual records of proposals, meetings, and the APA to determine the scope of any assumed contract obligations versus tort claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, a postal service employee sued the Postal Service, his national union, and local union branch, alleging that management repeatedly violated the collective bargaining agreement by forcing non-overtime-desired-list carriers to work mandatory overtime before exhausting the overtime-desired list, and that the unions failed to pursue or resolve related grievances in a timely or effective manner. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by the Postal Service and the unions. The court denied the motions in relevant part, holding that the plaintiff had stated a plausible claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation by allowing grievances to languish without obtaining a binding or precedential resolution, which could excuse the usual exhaustion requirement for hybrid claims against the employer. The reasoning centered on the allegations that the unions' handling of overtime grievances created ongoing harm and rendered the grievance process ineffective.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns National Instruments' allegations that EnSoft infringed two patents ('254 and '270) covering computer-implemented methods for detecting differences between graphical programs by creating data structures, matching objects, determining differences, and displaying them. Following PTO reexamination prompted by EnSoft, in which certain claims were initially rejected as obvious over prior art like the Horwitz article on textual program differencing, the parties filed claim construction briefs and EnSoft moved for summary judgment. The court addressed the motion and constructions, focusing on terms such as 'graphical programs' and 'graphical code,' the effect of prosecution history disclaimers or estoppel from reexamination arguments distinguishing textual prior art, and whether genuine disputes existed on infringement or validity issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves defendants' attempt to remove a state court action filed by plaintiff Justin Dowie to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court found multiple deficiencies in the amended notice of removal, including an insufficient allegation of the corporate defendant's principal place of business, an inadequate statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and a potential lack of complete diversity because one defendant shared Iowa citizenship with the plaintiff at the time the original petition was filed. The court explained that defendants bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction and that speculation or conclusory assertions do not suffice, citing precedents on the timing of citizenship assessments and the requirements for removal. It therefore ordered defendants to file a further amended notice addressing these issues by a set deadline.

procedure

In this case, Northland Truss System sued Henning Construction seeking to vacate an arbitrator's order that joined Northland to an ongoing arbitration proceeding arising from the collapse of a barn built using trusses supplied under a 2007 contract between the parties. Northland asserted federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the ground that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal law, and alternatively sought declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court granted Henning's motion to dismiss, holding that the federal question claim was patently meritless because the complaint failed to show the arbitrator was aware of and intentionally disregarded governing precedent. The court also declined to exercise declaratory jurisdiction, reasoning that it would improperly interfere with the pending arbitration and exceed the limited review authority provided by the Federal Arbitration Act, which applies only to final awards rather than interim orders. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved federal criminal charges against Ted Grauer for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), two counts of distributing child pornography under § 2252(a)(2), and one count of possessing child pornography under § 2252(a)(4)(B). A jury convicted Grauer on the enticement and possession counts but acquitted him on the distribution counts. Grauer moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence that he believed the person was a minor or that he knew the images depicted minors, and alternatively sought a new trial based on the weight of the evidence and alleged evidentiary errors. The court denied the motions, applying the strict standard that requires upholding the verdict if any reasonable interpretation of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and finding the jury's verdicts consistent with the evidence and the court's rulings proper.

criminal lawprocedure

In this copyright infringement action, Christopher & Banks Corporation, Christopher & Banks, Inc., and Christopher & Banks Company sued Dillard’s, Inc. and related entities, alleging infringement of U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA 1-347-700. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the first two plaintiffs lacked standing because only Christopher & Banks Company was alleged to be the sole owner of the copyright. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing Christopher & Banks Corporation and Christopher & Banks, Inc. as plaintiffs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501(b), which limits standing to legal or beneficial owners of exclusive rights, while denying defendants’ request for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 on the grounds that defendants were not prevailing parties and no considerations of compensation or deterrence justified such an award.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between David Fesler, a sales representative for Whelen Engineering Company from 1980 until his termination, and the company over the nature of their relationship and termination procedures. Fesler alleged that an oral agreement and the 1985 Company Policies document created enforceable rights to immediate notice of any shortcomings and a probationary period before termination. Whelen moved for summary judgment, maintaining that Fesler was an independent contractor who received IRS Form 1099s and was governed by policies that explicitly labeled representatives as non-employees. The court granted summary judgment, holding that Fesler was an independent contractor and that, even under an employment analysis, the policies did not form a unilateral contract altering Iowa's at-will employment doctrine because they contained reservations of rights to revise terms, discretionary language, and were superseded by later documents.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns Iowa Right to Life Committee, Inc. (IRTL), a nonprofit corporation, challenging Iowa's post-Citizens United campaign finance laws and rules that impose disclosure, registration, and potential PAC requirements on corporations making independent expenditures or contributions to political candidates. IRTL argued these provisions chilled its speech and violated the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause by treating corporations differently from unions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, concluding that IRTL lacked standing to pursue its equal protection claim and rejecting arguments that corporations are similarly situated to unions for regulatory purposes under precedents like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

electionsfree speech

In United States v. Adams, the defendant was charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) after police found crack cocaine, marijuana, and loaded handguns in an apartment she leased, where she and her cousins were present. Following a magistrate judge's pretrial detention order based on the rebuttable presumption of danger to the community and risk of flight for such charges, the district court conducted a de novo review under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The court granted the defendant's motion for review, finding that she had rebutted the presumption with evidence of no prior criminal history, willingness of her father as a third-party custodian, and her prior law-abiding behavior while living with him, while the government failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions could ensure community safety. The court ordered her release pending trial subject to specific conditions including residence with her father and compliance with various restrictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Sam's Riverside, Inc. suing Intercon Solutions, Inc., A-Reliable Auto Parts & Wreckers, Inc., and ARSHG, Inc. over domain names and websites developed for marketing heavy truck parts and air cleaners, with claims including cybersquatting, false advertising, false designation of origin, and per se palming off under federal trademark law. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately granting summary judgment to the defendants on the false advertising claim because the plaintiff provided no evidence that any challenged statements were material to consumer purchasing decisions. It similarly granted summary judgment on the palming off claim, finding insufficient evidence that defendants used photographs of plaintiff's products in a way that implied they were selling those items or that any actual sales occurred with misleading representations. The reasoning centered on the absence of required evidentiary support under standards from cases like Celotex and DaimlerChrysler, while noting disputes over the plaintiff's prior use of its asserted mark but deferring full resolution of that issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., the county sued the investment bank for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud claims stemming from the bank's role in financing a development project through bond issuance. A jury found for the defendant on all claims except fraudulent nondisclosure, on which it awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of $1. The court addressed the parties' post-trial motions, including the defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, by reviewing whether the evidence supported the verdict on the elements of fraudulent nondisclosure, such as the existence of a duty to disclose, materiality of the omitted information, and resulting damages. The court determined that the record lacked sufficient proof that nondisclosures affected the financing structure or caused any harm beyond the nominal amount awarded.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerns the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action seeking to seize $107,840 found hidden in a suitcase inside a rented vehicle driven by claimant Errett Pusey, who was stopped for speeding on Interstate 80 in Iowa. Officers obtained consent to search after the traffic stop, discovered the currency along with a pill they initially suspected was ecstasy, and the government moved for summary judgment on the ground that the money was connected to drug trafficking. Pusey opposed the motion and filed a motion to suppress, pointing to inconsistencies in statements, the circumstances of the consent, and the lack of admissible evidence linking the funds to illegal activity. The court applied the preponderance standard under 21 U.S.C. § 881, requiring the government to demonstrate a substantial connection between the currency and a controlled-substance offense, while excluding certain evidence due to admissibility concerns and addressing the claimant's explanations for possessing the money.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which American Family Mutual Insurance Company alleges that the Klines intentionally caused a fire destroying their home and a Corvette, seeking a declaratory judgment denying coverage under homeowners and auto policies along with monetary relief, while the Klines counterclaim for breach of contract. The present motion asks the court to limit the testimony of the Klines' expert, David Mariasy, regarding his analysis of a 911 call recording from the night of the fire, specifically barring him from identifying speakers, interpreting speech content, describing locations or mental states of individuals, and introducing his prepared transcript. The court grants the motion in full, holding that such testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because it would not assist the jury but instead would impermissibly tell it what conclusions to draw from the recording. Relying on Eighth Circuit precedent in Lee v. Andersen, the court reasons that the subject matter falls within the jury's common knowledge and experience, so expert interpretation is unnecessary and the original or enhanced recording can be presented directly for the jury's evaluation.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved James Ray suing Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for alleged age discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act following the termination of his employment as a claims representative. Ray had earlier filed an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, received right-to-sue letters from both but did not file a lawsuit within 90 days, and subsequently filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission before bringing this action in state court, which was removed to federal court. Nationwide moved for summary judgment, contending that the prior filings and administrative determinations barred the Iowa claim under principles of preclusion. The court examined the facts of the filings, the content of the right-to-sue letters, the lack of responses from Nationwide in the initial proceedings, and whether unreviewed administrative findings could have preclusive effect under federal law.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, former University of Iowa General Counsel Marcus Mills sued the Iowa Board of Regents, the State of Iowa, the University, and several officials after his 2008 departure from the position, alleging claims including breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional interference with contract arising from his involvement in a 2007 sexual assault investigation and related communications. The district court addressed multiple motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), focusing on sovereign immunity, the Iowa Tort Claims Act, and whether claims were properly stated against individuals in their personal or official capacities. The court granted the motions in substantial part, dismissing most claims against the State, Board of Regents, and University, as well as official-capacity claims against individuals, on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity and statutory exceptions barring intentional-tort claims; it denied dismissal of certain individual-capacity claims where certification under the Iowa Tort Claims Act did not conclusively apply. Core reasoning centered on the distinction between official and personal capacity liability, the conclusive effect of Attorney General certifications for state employees, and the scope of immunity under Iowa Code § 669.14 for claims tied to dissemination of information.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Donald D. Bergquist's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. After reviewing multiple prior administrative decisions and medical evidence regarding the plaintiff's gastrointestinal issues and work history, the court determined that the Commissioner's decision lacked substantial evidentiary support. The court therefore reversed the decision and remanded the case for an award of benefits.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involves the United States suing Dico, Inc. and Titan Tire Corp. under CERCLA to recover response costs, civil penalties, and punitive damages after PCBs from insulation in three buildings on the Dico property contaminated the SIM Site following their demolition. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to state a claim for arranger liability. The court denied the motion, holding that the allegations plausibly showed the defendants arranged for disposal of hazardous substances by directing the demolition and transport of contaminated materials, and that CERCLA § 9607(a)(3) imposes liability on those with sufficient ownership or control even without direct physical handling at the time of disposal.

environmentprocedure

The case involved Brenna Lewis suing Heartland Inns and a manager under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, claiming sex-stereotype discrimination and retaliation after she opposed a reassignment to overnight shifts that she believed was motivated by her appearance not conforming to gender stereotypes. A jury found for Lewis on the retaliation claim, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, but found for the defendants on the discrimination claim. In this post-trial order, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation and punitive damages claims. The court reasoned that Lewis engaged in protected conduct by opposing a practice she had a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief violated Title VII, without needing to show it would have amounted to actionable discrimination, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings. The court also granted Lewis's application for attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party.

civil rightslabor & employment