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

Criminal Law and Procedure

Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress finding Defendant's Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent as the evidence demonstrated Defendant communicated easily in English with law enforcement agents, did not express any lack of understanding, and did not ask the agents to stop the interview.

Commercial/Contract Litigation

Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in an action for breach of a non-compete clause between an employer and former independent contractor and denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to breach of the clause; Plaintiff did not demonstrate the non-compete clause was reasonably necessary to protect its business and enforcement would have been unduly burdensome on Plaintiff's rights, which rendered the clause unenforceable under Iowa law.


Granting Motion for Partial Dismissal reasoning that under the facts of the case, Plaintiff had not stated a claim under the Copyright Act for either statutory damages and attorney fees or for emotional distress damages.

Medicare/Social Security/ERISA/Similar Programs

Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that pleadings did not establish that state civil rights complaint and subsequent investigation were preempted by ERISA. Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot.

Intellectual Property

Granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding specific jurisdiction over LLC Defendant that had purposely availed itself to the laws of Iowa by allegedly offering "no trespassing" signs for sale in Iowa, but finding no jurisdiction over individual defendant whose only connection to the dispute was his status as the LLC's chief executive officer. Granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of copyright infringement, finding as a matter of law that Plaintiffs' copyrighted "no trespassing" sign and Defendants' allegedly infringing sign were not substantially similar.

Regulatory Law/Environmental Law/Public Health/Safety Law

Action raising claims and counterclaims for violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law. The Court grants AT&T's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Futurephone's counterclaims for violations of the Act, violations of Iowa Code § 476.5, tortious interference, quantum meruit, and abuse of process. The Court grants AT&T's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismisses Aventure's counterclaims for violations of the Act, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The Court denies Aventure's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss AT&T claims for violations of the Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and declaratory ruling, and grants the motion to dismiss as to AT&T's negligent misrepresentation claim.

Employment Law, Procedure

Granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective action certification, finding Plaintiff had established a common vehicle expense reimbursement policy and a common driving record requirement among the potential collective action members, and directing notice to be sent to potential collective action members.

Intellectual Property

Denying prevailing Defendants' motion for attorney's fees under § 505 of the Copyright Act because, among other considerations, Plaintiffs' position was not objectively unreasonable.

District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger

Constitutional Law/Federal Courts/Federal Jurisdiction

Defendant Abendroth & Russell's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted.  The case is dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters

Regulatory Law/Environmental Law/Public Health/Safety Law

Plaintiff PM Farms has not established any basis to set aside the NAD Director’s decisions in the two administrative proceedings under review. The decisions are affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the Complaint.