Opinions

The Southern District of Iowa offers a database of opinions for the years 1998 to the current date, listed by year, judge and opinion type. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Senior District Judge James E. Gritzner

Commercial/Contract Litigation

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must be denied, and Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue must also be denied.

Commercial/Contract Litigation

The Court must deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Commercial/Contract Litigation

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must be denied.

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law/Federal Courts/Federal Jurisdiction

The cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47 and ECF No. 48, must be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47, must be granted under Rule 56 as to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, for as-applied violation of Plaintiffs’ right to free speech and political expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to Plaintiffs’ ability to produce and reorder T-Shirt Design #1 and to produce other licensed apparel including a similar image of a cannabis leaf under ISU’s revised trademark guidelines. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48, must correspondingly be denied as to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Also for the reasons stated, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts II and III must correspondingly be granted. Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing trademark licensing policies against Plaintiffs in a viewpoint discriminatory manner and from further prohibiting Plaintiffs 44 Case 4:14-cv-00264-JEG-HCA Document 60 Filed 01/22/16 Page 44 of 45 from producing licensed apparel on the basis that their designs include the image of a similar cannabis leaf.

Plaintiffs are directed to submit to the Court their claims for fees, costs, and expenses in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law.

Post-Trial Procedure
For the reasons stated, Defendant’s Motion for Order Releasing and Discharging Judgment, must be denied. BNSF wrongfully withheld $3,698.36 from Plaintiff’s Judgment.  Marlin is entitled to Judgment, exclusive of post-judgment interest, in the amount of $73,390.97, which represents the jury award ($75,000) plus costs taxed ($2,878.97) minus the RRB lien ($4,488.00).  Within ten (10) days of this Order, BNSF is to advise the Court how to disburse the $69,757.53, which BNSF deposited with the Clerk of Court on November 20, 2015.
Procedure

Dismissed due to Limitations. The Court finds the plaintiff failed to bring his claim within the insurance policy limitations period. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.

Procedure

Denying Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction finding Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Defendants would not violate due process by demonstrating Defendants purposely availed themselves to the laws of Iowa by allegedly soliciting and entering into a loan agreement to be repaid to Plaintiffs in Iowa. Denying Defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer venue finding the breach of contract claim alleging Defendants reached into Iowa, solicited a loan from an Iowa resident, and agreed to perform its obligation by remitting payment to Plaintiff in Iowa demonstrated this District has a substantial connection to the claim.

Procedure

Granting Defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment finding, among other things, because Plaintiff modified Defendant's Rule 68 Confession of Judgment and had not accepted it as presented, mutual assent between the parties was lacking, no binding agreement under Rule 68 had been reached, and therefore judgment based thereupon must be vacated.

Procedure

Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss finding dismissal of Plaintiff's prayer for relief was inappropriate at this stage of the litigation as the propriety of the requested relief was inextricably intertwined with the merits of the underlying claim.

Procedure

Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. Denying Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Iowa Minimum Wage Law finding Plaintiff's IMWL claims were not preempted by federal law; granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law where Plaintiff alleged only unreimbursed expenses rather than deductions from wages, and thus failed to state a claim under IWPCL; denying Defendant's motion to deposit funds with the Court under FRCP 67 reasoning Defendant did not seek to be relieved of the burden of administering an asset and had not provided a reason why depositing the funds with the Court would promote judicial economy.

Pages