Rick Petro, plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. State of Iowa, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant., 15-2079

In 2009 Petro was charged with domestic abuse and DHS investigated; children were adjudicated CINA and DHS imposed supervised visits and restrictions due to Petro’s aggressive conduct.
DHS worker Lanny Fields suspended Petro’s visits after Petro threatened the mother and exhibited threatening/angry behavior; juvenile court ordered psychological evaluation and services and later waived reasonable efforts toward reunification due to Petro’s lack of cooperation.
The juvenile court terminated Petro’s parental rights in 2011 after a two-day termination hearing; Petro appealed and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the termination.
Petro filed a separate tort suit (IIED and negligent hiring/supervision) against the State in 2013, alleging Fields’s misconduct caused the termination and emotional distress; a §1983 claim was dismissed in federal court and the state tort claims were remanded.
The State moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata, quasi‑judicial and functional immunity, inactionable torts, and statute of limitations; the district court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds and dismissed Petro’s claims.
On appeal the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Petro’s tort suit was a collateral attack on the termination proceedings and barred by claim preclusion; Petro’s fraud allegations were intrinsic and insufficient to avoid preclusion.

Issue	Petro's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Petro’s IIED/negligent‑hiring claims are barred by res judicata (claim preclusion)	Petro: claims differ (tort for emotional distress, money damages) and parties/rules differ so not precluded	State: same parties in privity, final judgment exists, same cause of action (same facts and evidence)	Affirmed: claims barred by claim preclusion — tort arises from same nucleus of operative facts as termination case
Whether alleged fraud by DHS worker avoids preclusion	Petro: Fields lied, concealed abuse, falsified evidence — extrinsic fraud preventing fair adjudication	State: alleged misconduct is intrinsic fraud (testimony/recorded acts) and was or could have been litigated	Held: Fraud is intrinsic; collateral attack for intrinsic fraud not permitted; preclusion stands
Whether different remedy (monetary damages vs. parental reunification) defeats preclusion	Petro: remedy differs so claim is not the same cause of action	State: a new remedy for the same wrong does not avoid claim preclusion	Held: Remedy difference insufficient — cannot relitigate same wrong under new theory
Whether any immunity or other defenses independently bar the tort claims	Petro: did not successfully rebut; asserts equal protection (undeveloped)	State: raised quasi‑judicial and discretionary functional immunity and other defenses	Held: Court affirmed on res judicata; did not reach or rely primarily on alternative immunity defenses (res judicata dispositive)

Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2004) (negligent hiring/supervision requires underlying tort by employee)
Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 2006) (explaining claim and issue preclusion principles)
Pavone v. Kirke, 807 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2011) (three‑part test for claim preclusion: same parties/privity, final judgment, same cause of action)
Vinson v. Linn‑Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 360 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 1984) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Robbins v. Dist. Ct., 592 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1979) (state‑court loss cannot be relitigated in new forum under same operative facts)
Phipps v. Winneshiek Cty., 593 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1999) (distinguishing extrinsic and intrinsic fraud; intrinsic fraud not a basis to vacate judgment)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker‑Feldman doctrine described; federal courts cannot review state‑court judgments)