Stanko v. Domina
A-21-732
| Neb. Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2022Background
- Rudy Stanko (pro se) sued attorney David Domina and his firm seeking to enjoin Domina from representing Kyle Schwarting in a commercial dispute, alleging a conflict of interest based on Domina’s representation of Stanko in a 2006 federal criminal case.
- The commercial dispute involved sale/lease issues and alleged conversion/damage to equipment arising in 2020–2021.
- Stanko sought injunctive relief and damages, asserting Domina learned material information about Stanko’s ranch/feedlot during the 2006 criminal representation.
- The district court denied temporary injunctive relief (May 24, 2021), finding the criminal and commercial matters not substantially related and noting a disqualification motion was the proper remedy.
- Domina moved for judgment on the pleadings; the district court granted the motion (Sept. 1, 2021), concluding Stanko’s claims failed as a matter of law and dismissing with prejudice.
- Stanko appealed, arguing the district court should have allowed a jury to decide the conflict and damages issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanko had a right to a jury trial on his claims | Stanko argued a jury should decide whether a conflict of interest and damages existed | Domina argued the action sought equitable relief (injunction) and thus no right to jury; court should resolve legal questions on pleadings | No jury right—action sought equitable injunctive relief, so judge properly decided issues |
| Whether the complaint stated a claim warranting relief (motion for judgment on the pleadings) | Stanko alleged Domina’s prior representation gave him confidential knowledge relevant to the commercial dispute and sought injunction/damages | Domina argued the prior representation was limited to criminal trial work, matters were not substantially related, and complaint failed to state legal claims | Complaint failed to state a claim; district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether injunctive relief was appropriate (irreparable harm/inadequate remedy at law) | Stanko claimed irreparable harm from Domina’s continued representation | Domina showed no substantial relation between matters and noted alternative remedies (motion to disqualify) | Stanko failed to show irreparable harm or lack of adequate legal remedy; injunction inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmid v. Simmons, 311 Neb. 48 (2022) (distinguishes legal vs. equitable actions for jury right)
- County of Cedar v. Thelen, 305 Neb. 351 (2020) (injunction sounds in equity)
- Foundation One Bank v. Svoboda, 303 Neb. 624 (2019) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- White v. Ardan, Inc., 230 Neb. 11 (1988) (court may consider pleadings on judgment on the pleadings)
- Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212 (2017) (whether complaint states cause of action is a question of law)
- Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 (2020) (dismissal appropriate where no relief can be granted on pleadings)
- State v. Wood, 310 Neb. 391 (2021) (appellate courts require specifically assigned and argued errors)
- United States v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007) (prior federal criminal conviction/representation referenced)
- Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973) (Seventh Amendment jury-trial jurisprudence cited but found inapplicable)