Scott Rueter and Tricia Rueter v. Osceola Windpower, LLC
16-2088
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Scott and Tricia Rueter sued Osceola Windpower in January 2010 alleging nuisance and negligence from wind turbines placed near their home, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Litigation proceeded for nearly seven years with multiple continuances and changes in counsel; trial dates were repeatedly reset and ultimately never held.
- Major dispute centered on the Rueters’ failure to provide and timely supplement discovery (particularly updated damage calculations) as ordered by the district court.
- The Rueters’ counsel had previously been sanctioned for discovery failures; the court repeatedly warned the Rueters they were "dangerously close" to frustrating the litigation process.
- Osceola Windpower filed three motions to dismiss for discovery noncompliance; the district court granted the third motion in December 2016, dismissing the case for continual lack of prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was an abuse of discretion for discovery violations | Rueters: violations were minor, inadvertent, or "in defense counsel's mind" only | Osceola Windpower: Rueters repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and discovery rules, causing delays | Court: No abuse — dismissal warranted for willful/noncompliant discovery conduct |
| Whether attorney's conduct can justify dismissal of client’s suit | Rueters: fault should not be imputed or was inadvertent | Osceola Windpower: attorney’s failures equate to client’s failure to prosecute | Held: Attorney’s actions/inaction can justify dismissal; willfulness need not be shown to be by the client personally |
| Whether lesser sanctions were required before dismissal | Rueters: dismissal was too severe; lesser sanctions appropriate | Osceola Windpower: prior sanctions and warnings had been imposed; continued noncompliance justified dismissal | Held: Availability of lesser sanctions is not dispositive; dismissal need not be reversed for that reason |
| Whether dismissal standard under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.517 narrowed court discretion | Rueters: dismissal inappropriate absent bad faith | Osceola Windpower: record shows substantial evidence of willful noncompliance | Held: Although standard is narrow, record supported willful noncompliance and dismissal was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Troendle v. Hanson, 570 N.W.2d 753 (Iowa 1997) (standard of abuse of discretion review)
- Kenall/Hunt Pub. Co. v. Rowe, 424 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 1988) (discretion constrained when dismissing under discovery rules)
- Wagner v. Miller, 555 N.W.2d 246 (Iowa 1996) (attorney’s misconduct may justify dismissal; willfulness/contumaciousness required for dismissal)
- Suckow v. Boone State Bank & Trust Co., 314 N.W.2d 421 (Iowa 1982) (dismissal inappropriate absent violation of court order; survey of dismissal cases)