Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department, 984 N.W.2d 178

Background

Marcelino Alvarez Victoriano sued the City of Waterloo and officer C.J. Nichols, alleging Nichols shot him without justification.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Iowa Code § 670.4A (qualified immunity and heightened pleading).
The district court scheduled the motion hearing for Jan 13, 2022; Alvarez Victoriano voluntarily dismissed his petition without prejudice on Jan 12.
Defendants sought relief, arguing § 670.4A(3) requires dismissal with prejudice for failure to meet pleading standards; the court granted that motion and dismissed with prejudice.
The Supreme Court considered whether § 670.4A removes the longstanding one-time right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice (Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.943) before a court rules on a motion to dismiss.
The Court held § 670.4A does not abrogate the plaintiff’s one-time right to dismiss without prejudice; the statute’s "shall" governs the court’s disposition on a motion, not the plaintiff’s procedural right.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 670.4A precludes a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a petition without prejudice after a defendant files a § 670.4A motion	Alvarez Victoriano may exercise the Rule 1.943 one-time dismissal right before the court rules	§ 670.4A(3) requires dismissal with prejudice for failure to meet heightened pleading; "shall" compels the court to dismiss and prevents voluntary dismissal	Court: Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss once without prejudice prior to the court ruling; "shall" limits the court's disposition, not the plaintiff's dismissal right
Whether § 670.4A impliedly repeals or supersedes Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.943 and related pleading rules	The statute does not clearly express intent to overturn long-established dismissal rule; pleading terms incorporate procedural rules allowing amendment/repleading	The statute's mandatory language and consequence (dismissal with prejudice) supersede the rule in IMTCA cases	Court: No implied repeal; harmonize statute with rules—pleading requirements apply, but Rule 1.943’s one-time dismissal remains intact
Whether preserving voluntary dismissal undermines qualified immunity policy and government defendants' interests	Allowing one voluntary dismissal preserves plaintiff rights and accountability; defendants can still test sufficiency after refiling and rely on statute of limitations and other rules to prevent gamesmanship	Permitting dismissal lets plaintiffs evade immunity protections and causes prejudice to officials	Court: Preserving the dismissal right does not defeat qualified immunity; defendants retain procedural tools to test pleadings and prevent abuse

Key Cases Cited

ACC Holdings, LLC v. Rooney, 973 N.W.2d 851 (Iowa 2022) (describing one-time voluntary dismissal rule)
Valles v. Mueting, 956 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 2021) (Rule 1.943 gives absolute right to dismiss before trial)
Venard v. Winter, 524 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 1994) (plaintiff may dismiss to avoid adverse rulings; motive irrelevant)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (articulating qualified immunity balancing interests)
Rees v. City of Shenandoah, 682 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 2004) (notice pleading standard in Iowa)
Lawson v. Kurtzhals, 792 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa 2010) (rule 1.943 leaves court with no discretion to prevent timely voluntary dismissal)