The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 7 and 8. Four other cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of those cases. Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in these cases.
[Note: The Court will hear arguments in one case Oct. 7 at 7 p.m. in the historic Supreme Court Courtroom in the State Capitol. Also, the Court will travel to the University of Iowa College of Law on Oct. 24 to hear arguments in one case at 1:30 p.m. On Brief will post a summary of that case closer to the argument date.]
City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 7, 9 a.m.
Question: Is the Iowa State Auditor required by statute to be represented in court by the Iowa Attorney General unless the Attorney General is disqualified and alternative counsel is approved by the Executive Council?
Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand and Attorney General Brenna Bird ask the Iowa Supreme Court to decide whether the Auditor has authority to represent himself in a case before the Scott County District Court regarding access to Davenport City Council records or whether he must be represented by the Iowa Attorney General.
In the course of an audit of the City of Davenport, Sand issued a subpoena seeking a recording of a closed session of the Davenport City Council in which the Council discussed the payment at the direction of the city attorney of $1.8 million to three city employees as part of a legal settlement. The Council closed the meeting, asserting the attorney-client privilege exception in the Iowa Open Meetings Act.
The city opposed the subpoena and filed an interlocutory appeal with the Iowa Supreme Court challenging the district court’s decision saying the Auditor could access the closed-meeting recording. In addition to the Auditor’s brief filed with the Iowa Supreme Court in that appeal, the Attorney General drafted a brief in support of the district court, but over the objections of the Auditor subsequently filed a revised version of that brief making a different argument addressing the City’s attorney-client privilege claim.
With conflicting briefs before it on the question of who should represent the Auditor in this case, Supreme Court Justice David May struck the Attorney General’s brief on the Auditor’s motion, accepted the Auditor’s brief, and the Court ordered further briefing on the question.
The Attorney General argues in her brief filed in response to that order states that the Iowa Attorney General has the exclusive duty to represent any state officer in court, citing Iowa Code Section 13.2(1). If the Attorney General is disqualified, alternative counsel may be appointed with the approval of the Executive Council, but the Attorney General is not disqualified in this case and the Auditor has not gotten approval for alternative legal representation from the Executive Council.
The Auditor, in his brief with the Court, argues that he and the Attorney General disagree about the strategy in the Davenport case on the question of executive privilege preventing access to the closed-meeting recording, which he states is critical to the audit. The Auditor says he does not want to concede the point he won in the district court on that question and argues the Attorney General does not have the authority to substitute her judgment for the Auditor’s.
J. Doe v. Polk County District Court
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 7, 9 a.m.
Question: Did the Polk County District Court err in expunging an applicant’s misdemeanor conviction without expunging a related charge that was dismissed?
J. Doe appeals from the Polk County District Court’s order expunging his 2013 conviction on one count of disorderly conduct but not a separate count of child endangerment, which was dismissed. The district court subsequently denied Doe’s motion to expunge the second count as well. Doe argues on appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court that many docket entries in the case remain publicly available on Iowa Courts Online and both the count on which he was convicted and the count that was dismissed should be expunged as provided by Iowa Code Section 901C.3 for misdemeanors.
Law Office of Shawn Shearer, Shawn Shearer and Theodore F. Sporer v. Fremont County District Court
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 7, 9 a.m.
Question: Were sanctions appropriate for counsel for plaintiffs challenging regulation of wind energy projects in two counties for pursuing an action in the second county after similar claims had been dismissed in the first?
The Law Office of Shawn Shearer, Shawn Shearer and Theodore F. Sporer appeal the Fremont County District Court’s $30,000 sanction against them for failing to dismiss their civil action filed against Fremont County regarding its regulation of a wind energy project. The defendants in that case filed a motion for sanctions after Shearer and Sporer declined to dismiss their claim. The defendants cited a ruling in federal district court dismissing Shearer and Sporers’ suit in neighboring Page County regarding the wind energy project in the two counties. The district court agreed with the argument by defendants seeking sanctions that the plaintiffs’ counsel violated Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413.(1) by pursuing the same untimely claims based on legal previously rejected claims.
Teig v. Loeffler, et al.
Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 7 without oral argument.
Question: Did the Cedar Rapids City Council violate the Iowa Open Meetings Act by conducting a job interview with a city clerk candidate in a meeting closed to the public?
Patrick Loeffler, Ashley Vanorney, Dale Todd, Brad Hart, Ann Poe, Tyler Olson and Scott Olson – members of the Cedar Rapids City Council – seek further review of a Jan. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals decision reversing in part and affirming in part the Linn County District Court’s dismissal of Robert Teig’s suit against the council members claiming they violated the Iowa Open Meetings Act in holding a closed-door job interview with a candidate for city clerk. The City Council cited an exception in the open-meetings law to “evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.” The Court of Appeals agreed with Teig that the Council violated the open-meetings law but affirmed the district court’s decision to close a portion of the trial to review a recording of the Council’s closed session and to seal the recording. In their application for further review, the council members argue the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Council should have reopened the meeting once it realized the interview would not involve information damaging to the applicant’s reputation. The Council argues that moving in and out of closed session multiple times during a single meeting is not realistic or feasible.
Amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Court in support of the Council by the Iowa Association of School Boards, the Iowa League of Cities and the Iowa State Association of Counties, and the State of Iowa; and in support of Teig by the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. [Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys Leslie C. Behaunek and Adam P. Humes wrote the brief for amici curiae Iowa League of Cities and the Iowa State Association of Counties]
In re Davenport Hotel Building Collapse
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 7, 1:30 p.m.
Question: Did the Scott County District Court err in holding that the City of Davenport and city employees are not entitled to qualified immunity against claims related to the collapse of an apartment building?
The City of Davenport and three Davenport city officials appeal the Scott County District Court’s holding that the City and its employees are not entitled to qualified immunity under Iowa Code Section 670.4A against liability for the partial collapse of an apartment building. Several lawsuits brought by families of residents who died in the collapse and other residents who were injured and left homeless were consolidated into one. They claim the City defendants failed to recognize when inspecting the building that it was in danger of collapse and to order its evacuation. The City and city employees argue on appeal they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs cannot establish the defendants had a common law or statutory duty of care by virtue of having inspected the building prior to its partial collapse.
Sondag v. Orthopaedic Specialists and Hoffman
Will be submitted to the court Oct. 7 without oral argument.
Question: Did the Scott County District Court properly dismiss a medical malpractice claim because the plaintiff missed deadlines for certifying and disclosing her expert witness?
Jenna Sondag seeks further review of a Jan. 23 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Scott County District Court’s dismissal of her medical negligence claim against Orthopaedic Specialists and John Hoffman MD following the district court’s decertification of her expert witness. Sondag missed deadlines for certifying and disclosing her expert witness by more than four months. The district court initially accepted Sondag’s case that she had good cause for seeking an extension of time, but a week before trial revised that ruling based on recent, unpublished decisions of the Iowa Court of Appeals, decertified Sondag’s expert, and dismissed the case. In her application for further review, Sondag argues the defendants improperly challenged anew the timeliness issue in a pre-trial motion 1,441 days after the initial ruling, and district court erred in reversing itself on the eve of trial.
Mormann v. City of Manchester and James Wessels
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 7, 7 p.m., Historic Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol.
[Disclosure – Nyemaster Goode attorneys David Bower and Logan Eliasen represent the City of Manchester and James Wessels in this case.]
Questions: Did the Delaware County District Court err in submitting assault and battery claims to a jury that had not been pleaded by plaintiffs until a week before trial? And, are the City of Manchester and a police officer immune from liability under an Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act exception?
The City of Manchester and James Wessels appeal a $4.25 million Delaware County jury verdict for the death of Sandra and Daniel Mormann’s son, Augustin G. Mormann. The Mormanns claim Officer Wessels caused Augustin to crash his motorcycle during a high-speed pursuit that resulted in Augustin’s death. The jury returned the verdict in the Mormanns’ favor and awarded an additional $10,000 for punitive damages against Wessels. On appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, the City and Wessels argue the district court erred in submitting claims of assault and battery to the jury, which were not pursued by the Mormanns until one week before the trial; that there was insufficient evidence to support the assault and battery claims and punitive damages; and that they are immune from the plaintiffs’ claims under an exception in the Municipal Tort Claims Act that imposes municipal liability only where it is expressly imposed by statute. The City and Wessels ask the Court to reverse the district court judgment or, in the alternative, order a new trial.
State v. Pagliai
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 8, 9 a.m.
Question: Did the Polk County District Court err in ordering a defendant to pay victim restitution in cases that were dismissed?
Ronald Pagliai appeals his sentence in Polk County District Court to pay restitution on a charge of burglary that was dismissed. Paglai, who was charged with theft in four separate cases, pleaded guilty in two cases in a plea agreement dismissing the other two. In addition to a 41-day sentence, the district court ordered Pagliai to pay court costs, including victim restitution and court costs associated with the two dismissed cases. On appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, Pagliai asserts that under Iowa Code Section 815.9, a defendant who receives legal assistance is required to pay court costs only in the case of a conviction or acquittal, neither of which applies to him. Pagliai argues the restitution payment order based on dismissed cases violates his constitutional right to due process and right to counsel.
An amicus curiae brief in support of Pagliai was filed by the ACLU of Iowa and the Fines and Fees Justice Center.
Beecher Store Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue Alcoholic Beverages Division
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 8, 9 a.m.
Question: Should an alcohol licenseholder have been penalized as a habitual offender for making a second sale of alcohol to an underage customer seconds after the first sale was made to another underage buyer?
Beecher Store appeals from the Dubuque County District Court’s decision affirming the Iowa Department of Revenue Alcoholic Beverages Division’s assessment of civil penalties for first and second violations of Iowa Code Section 123.50(3)(a) and (b) that make it a crime for a liquor licensee to sell or otherwise supply any alcoholic beverage to any person under legal age. Beecher Store challenges the second-violation penalty, arguing the statute’s progressive penalty scheme intended for habitual offenders does not apply in this case where two minor-age customers entered the business at the same time and the second sale to a minor came seconds after the sale to the first minor. Beecher Store also argues Iowa Code section 123.50(3) is unconstitutionally vague.
Recio v. Fridley, et al.
Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 8 without oral argument.
[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorney Spencer Cady represents Frederick M. Fridley and the other defendant-appellees in this case.]
Question: Was an attorney acting with authority on behalf of his client in accepting a settlement in his client’s negligence claim?
Oscar Recio and Maria Recio seek further review of a March 19 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Warren County District Court’s order enforcing a settlement reached between the Recios’ attorney and Fridley for Oscar Recio’s injuries in a vehicle crash caused by Frederick Fridley. Recios argues he never authorized his attorney to accept the settlement before hiring a different attorney who sought to renegotiate a settlement. Fridley filed a motion in district court seeking enforcement of the original settlement. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that emails between Recios’ first attorney and Fridley “clearly established” that the first attorney’s settlement demand had been accepted, and that the first attorney acted with authority.
Stoltze v. Stokes
Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 8, 1:30 p.m.
Question: Does a district court lose jurisdiction to award attorney fees after the court has entered judgment and its jurisdiction has thus expired?
Michael Stoltze appeals the Polk County District Court’s ruling awarding $33,600 in attorney fees to Grace Stokes and Macauley Stokes after the court ruled in their favor and against Stoltze in a quiet title action regarding the neighbors’ dispute over the boundary between their adjoining properties. In his appeal of the attorney fee award, Stoltze argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney fees after quiet title had been granted without awarding attorney fees at the time, and beyond the 30-day deadline for appealing that ruling.
Rarick v. Smidt and Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons
Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 8 without oral argument.
Question: Did plaintiffs substantially comply with the statutory requirement that an expert’s certificate of merit in a medical malpractice action be signed under oath and witnessed by a notary public?
Richard and Teresa Rarick appeal the Polk County District Court’s dismissal of their medical malpractice action against Wesley Smidt MD and Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, agreeing with the defendants’ claim that the Raricks’ certificate of merit filed by their expert was invalid because it was not sworn to be true in the presence of a notary public as required by Iowa Code section 147.140. The Raricks argue on appeal that the defendants waived their right to challenge the certificate of merit by waiting for 15 months to raise the challenge, while engaging in litigation, until after discovery was completed, and following meditation. The Raricks also argue they substantially complied with section 147.140 because their expert reasonably believed he was under oath and subject to criminal penalties if his testimony was false.
The post Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 7 and 8 appeared first on Nyemaster Goode On Brief.