Three retirees of Deere & Company filed a class action under ERISA claiming that changes to medical benefits effective January 1, 2008, breached promises of vested lifetime benefits made through company policies, oral representations, and plan documents. After a bifurcated bench trial on liability, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The decision rested on findings that the controlling written plan documents, including the Salaried Health Plan and SPDs, unambiguously reserved to Deere the right to amend or terminate benefits, and that extrinsic evidence did not establish any contrary vested rights.
This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed in Iowa state court arising from a collision between a pickup truck and a train. The railroad defendant removed the action to federal court, and the plaintiff moved to remand, joined by the other defendant. The court denied the motion to remand, concluding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act and associated regulations completely preempt state-law claims concerning the adequacy of warning devices at the crossing, negligent train operation, and use of audible warnings. The court retained supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims to permit a single trial. It followed the reasoning of a similar Eastern District of Missouri decision while noting contrary authority from the same district.
In this case, plaintiff Edmund Biggs, proceeding pro se, sued his former employer Deere & Co. and the union representing him, alleging violations of rights under Deere’s employee benefit plans, collective bargaining agreements, and Iowa workers’ compensation laws stemming from a 1987 injury and his 1990 termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, pointing to a 1991 settlement agreement under which Biggs had received and retained workers’ compensation and disability retirement benefits. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the case, finding that Biggs presented no probative evidence to disavow the settlement or show underpayment, that Deere was not a fiduciary under ERISA, and that the claims lacked merit or were untimely. The ruling relied on the standards for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and precedents such as Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
In Skarin Ex Rel. Skarin v. Woodbine Community School District, non-Christian high school choir students and their parents sued the public school district and board, alleging that the board's decision to include a performance of 'The Lord's Prayer' at graduation infringed their First Amendment rights by requiring participation or alternative activities. The court permanently enjoined the school from rehearsing or performing the piece at graduations for as long as the plaintiffs remained students. The ruling was based on the conclusion that the board's action had no secular purpose, primarily advanced Christianity, and violated the Establishment Clause under precedents such as Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe and Lee v. Weisman, as well as the Lemon test.
The case involved plaintiff William Logan, a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, who sued defendant Ameristar Casino for allowing him to continue gambling and serving him alcohol despite knowledge of his addictions, citing Iowa Admin. Code § 491-5.4 on gambling treatment programs, along with claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium by his wife. The court granted the casino's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the cited regulation does not create an implied private right of action or duty of care under Iowa law, no enforceable gambling contract existed due to heavy state regulation precluding mutuality, Logan failed to allege any false material representation, and thus the consortium claim also failed.
In this case, plaintiff Don Sutter filed a class-action lawsuit in Iowa state court against defendant Aventis CropScience, alleging that its StarLink genetically engineered corn seed damaged the U.S. corn export market and caused economic losses to non-StarLink corn growers, seeking actual and punitive damages plus injunctive relief. Aventis removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, prompting Sutter's motion to remand on grounds that the amount in controversy per class member fell below the $75,000 threshold. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied when punitive damages and the value of injunctive relief were included in the calculation. The court reasoned that, although the complaint alleged damages under $75,000, the pleaded facts and comparable cases demonstrated to a legal certainty or by a preponderance of the evidence that the total relief sought exceeded the requirement, precluding remand.