991 N.W.2d 770
Iowa
2023

JIM NAHAS, Appellee, vs. POLK COUNTY, IOWA, TOM HOCKENSMITH, Individually and in His Official Capacity, ANGELA CONNOLLY, Individually and in Her Official Capacity, STEVE VAN OORT, Individually and in His Official Capacity, ROBERT BROWNELL, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and JOHN NORRIS, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Appellants.

No. 22–0239

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

Submitted December 15, 2022—Filed June 9, 2023

Brad McCall, Judge (district court)

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Brad McCall, Judge.

County officials appeal a district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss based on its conclusion that the qualified immunity provisions in the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act did not apply retrospectively. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. Mansfield, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Kimberly Graham, County Attorney, and Meghan L. Gavin (argued), Assistant County Attorney, for appellants.

Nicholas Mauro (argued) of Carney & Appleby Law Firm, Des Moines, and Michael Carroll of Coppola, McConville, Carroll, Hockenberg & Flynn, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee.

Carlton G. Salmons of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for amicus curiae Heartland Insurance Risk Pool.

CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice.

An aggrieved former Polk County employee brings an array of tort claims against the county and the Polk County Board of Supervisors (the Board) under Iowa Code chapter 670 (2021). Polk County and those employers sought to dismiss the claims, arguing they were insulated from liability under Iowa’s recently enacted qualified immunity provision. They also argued the former employee did not satisfy Iowa Code section 670.4A’s new pleading requirement for qualified immunity defenses. The district court rejected these arguments and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants now appeal that ruling.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On January 5, 2021, the Board fired Jim Nahas, the Polk County Human Resources Director, after he refused to resign. Nahas challenged his termination by filing a lawsuit against Polk County and four members of the Board, claiming libel per se, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, extortion, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Iowa Code section 670.4A, a new provision of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), and Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.421. On January 26, 2022, the district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding section 670.4A did not apply retrospectively. The court also concluded that Nahas’s petition satisfied the notice pleading standards. The defendants filed a timely appeal, which we retained. See Iowa Code § 670.4A(4) (“Any decision by the district court denying qualified immunity shall be immediately appealable.”).

Additional facts will be discussed as necessary.

II. Standard of Review.

“We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for the correction of errors at law.” Benskin, Inc. v. W. Bank, 952 N.W.2d 292, 298 (Iowa 2020) (quoting Shumate v. Drake Univ., 846 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Iowa 2014)). In our review, “we accept as true the petition’s well-pleaded factual allegations, but not its legal conclusions.” Benskin, Inc. v. W. Bank, 952 N.W.2d at 298 (quoting Shumate, 846 N.W.2d at 507).

Read the detailed case summary