 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PICKENS v. GAFFNEY5/31/2002
Dennis Pickens appeals the decision of the district court that dismissed his petition against attorneys who represented his opponent in a former lawsuit, on the grounds of failure to state a cause of action, issue preclusion, and statute of limitations. He claims his petition should not have been dismissed. We affirm.
Pickens was formerly employed by Soo Line Railroad. He injured his back during his employment and filed a suit in federal court under the Federal Employment Liability Act (FELA). Todd Gaffney, of the law firm Finley, Alt, Smith, Scharnberg, May and Craig, P.C. (Finley law firm), represented Soo Line in the suit. Trial was held in May 1996. Pickens received about $365,000 in damages.
Pickens was terminated by Soo Line in October 1996. Pickens then filed a federal suit raising claims relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), breach of contract, and judicial estoppel. Kevin Driscoll of the Finley law firm represented Soo Line in this suit. The issues in this action were decided adversely to Pickens and were upheld on appeal. See Pickens v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 264 F.3d 773, 775 (8th Cir. 2001).
Pickens filed the present lawsuit in Iowa district court on March 29, 2001, claiming Gaffney, Driscoll, and the Finley law firm had engaged in deceit or collusion by asserting in the FELA suit that Soo Line would accommodate his injury by permitting him to work two or three days per week. Pickens claims the jury mitigated his damages in the FELA action, believing he would have continued employment. He alleged Soo Line then denied accommodation and terminated him. He also claimed that during the ADA trial, defendants suppressed their statements in the FELA trial, and made representations contrary to those in the FELA trial, which resulted in a judgment as a matter of law for Soo Line. Pickens sought treble damages under Iowa Code section 602.10113 (1999), which provides:
An attorney and counselor who is guilty of deceit or collusion, or consents thereto, with intent to deceive a court or judge or a party to an action or proceeding, is liable to be disbarred, and shall forfeit to the injured party treble damages to be recovered in a civil action.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a cause of action, issue preclusion, and statute of limitations. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on each of these grounds. The court found the statements of an attorney during litigation are absolutely privileged. The court also found Pickens's claims were rejected in the ADA lawsuit, and thus were now barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Finally, the court determined section 602.10113 created a "statute penalty" and Pickens's suit was untimely under the two-year statute of limitations found in section 614.1(2). Pickens appeals.
I. Scope of Review
We review a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for corrections of errors at law. Robbins v. Heritage Acres, 578 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). A motion to dismiss must stand or fall on the exclusive contents of the petition and cannot rely on facts not alleged in the petition or facts presented at an evidentiary hearing. Id. We consider the petition in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunt v. State, 538 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
II. Issue Preclusion
The district court determined Pickens's petition should be dismissed on the ground of issue preclusion, finding the issues Pickens raised in the present action had been addressed in the ADA suit. The court determined all the facts and evidence that served as the basis for this suit were considered in the ADA suit.
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|