Opinion
No. 4-181 / 02-1119.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, John S. Mackey, Judge.
T.F. Ltd. appeals the district court's denial of the motion to compel and its applications for adjudication of law points. AFFIRMED.
Larry Cohrt of Roberts, Cohrt, Stevens Lekar, P.L.C., Waterloo, and Michael Pedersen, Waterloo, for appellant.
Ross Johnson of Faegre Benson, L.L.P., Des Moines, John Mandler and Kristin Eads of Faegre Benson, L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Mark Woollums of Keeney, Neuman McMahon, L.L.P., Davenport, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A farm corporation appeals the district court's denial of its motion to compel the production of documents and its applications for adjudication of law points. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
T.F. Ltd. is a family corporation engaged in the business of farming. T.F. Ltd. rotated the planting of soybeans and corn on an annual basis.
In 1989, T.F. Ltd. had an outbreak of the weed cocklebur on one of its soybean fields. To address the weed problem, the farm operators applied an herbicide known as Scepter. At the time of the application, Scepter was manufactured and marketed by American Cyanamid Company (American Cyanamid).
T.F. Ltd. applied the herbicide in other years, but those applications are not at issue.
In subsequent years, T.F. Ltd. planted corn on the Scepter-treated field. The corn was damaged and the yield reduced. T.F. Ltd. sued American Cyanamid, claiming the damage and yield reduction were due to the carryover effect of Scepter. The corporation raised various claims including a claim based on negligent design and testing.
In 1995, T.F. Ltd. moved to compel American Cyanamid to provide "all documents produced and trial exhibits used" in a similar case. See Gorton v. American Cyanamid, 533 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. 1995). The district court denied the motion, reasoning that T.F. Ltd. did not allege "a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery issue with opposing counsel and plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that no communication was made to opposing counsel at the time of hearing."
In 1995, T.F. Ltd. also filed an application for adjudication of law points, arguing that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the findings of the Wisconsin jury in Gorton were binding in this case. The district court denied the application.
After these two rulings were issued, American Cyanamid moved for and was granted summary judgment on the ground that all the claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. ("FIFRA").
T.F. Ltd. appealed, claiming the district court erred in sustaining the summary judgment motion, denying its motion to compel discovery, and denying its application for adjudication of law points. The appeal was transferred to this court and we affirmed. On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated our opinion and affirmed all portions of the district court ruling except the dismissal of T.F. Ltd's claim based on negligent design and testing. The court remanded the case for consideration of this claim.
On remand, T.F. Ltd. filed a second application for adjudication of law points. In this second application, T.F. Ltd. renewed its first application and also argued that the case of Ackerman v. American Cyanamid, Butler County No. 17718-0492, was binding on the issues of negligent design and testing. The district court denied the application, finding that the use of offensive issue preclusion was not appropriate.
Trial was held on the claim of negligent design and testing. The jury found in favor of American Cyanamid. T.F. Ltd. moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The district court denied the motions and T.F. Ltd. appealed.
The sole issues on appeal are whether the district court properly denied T.F. Ltd.'s 1) motion to compel and 2) applications for adjudication of law points.
II. Motion to Compel
As a preliminary matter, American Cyanamid argues T.F. Ltd.'s appeal of the district court's ruling on its motion to compel is an impermissible "second bite at the appellate apple. . . ." We agree.
After the district court denied T.F. Ltd.'s motion to compel in 1995, T.F. Ltd. appealed that denial. In our ruling on the first appeal, we stated, "there is no indication the district court abused its discretion in denying T.F.'s motion to compel." T.F Ltd. sought further review, expressly challenging this portion of our opinion, together with others. The Iowa Supreme Court did not explicitly address the ruling on T.F. Ltd.'s motion to compel. Accordingly, its opinion did not become the law of the case on this issue. See State ex. rel. Goettsch v. Diacide Distrib., 596 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 1999) (stating law of case doctrine "applies only to so much of an opinion by an appellate court in a former decision in the same case as was essential to the determination required of the court."). However, on remand, T.F. Ltd. did not renew its motion to compel. Accordingly, we have nothing to review. See Benavides v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 539 N.W.2d 352, 356 (Iowa 1995) ("Issues must ordinarily be presented to and passed upon by the trial court before they may be raised and adjudicated on appeal."); cf. State ex. rel. Miller v. Nat'l Dietary Research, Inc., 454 N.W.2d 820, 826-27 (Iowa 1990) (instructing district court to give State opportunity to renew motion to compel on remand).
III. Adjudication of Law Points
T.F. Ltd. next contends the district court should not have denied its first and second applications for adjudication of law points premised on the doctrine of offensive issue preclusion. American Cyanamid counters that T.F. Ltd. failed to preserve error on its first application. Although we are inclined to agree, we bypass our error preservation concerns and proceed to the merits of both applications. See State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1999).
T.F. Ltd. attached a copy of its first application to its second application and alleged it was renewing this application. The district court's ruling made no mention of the first application or the legal argument made there, but concluded the second application was "overruled and denied in its entirety."
We generally review rulings on motions for adjudication of law points for errors of law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Economy Fire Cas. Co., 623 N.W.2d 871, 876 (Iowa 2001). However, rulings on the application of issue preclusion are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Fischer v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Iowa 2002).
T.F. Ltd. first argues that the jury findings in the case of Gorton v. American Cyanamid, 533 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. 1995) "conclusively determined the issues of whether American Cyanamid negligently misrepresented the safety of Scepter in its literature to the consuming public and whether American Cyanamid's concealing of the potential hazard of Scepter to follow corn was outrageous." American Cyanamid responds that these issues were not issues on remand in the present case. We agree.
Issue preclusion requires, at a minimum, that "the issue concluded . . . be identical. . . ." Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1981). Gorton began withclaims of 1) breach of warranty, 2) defective product (specifically, strict liability defective design or manufacture and strict liability failure to warn), and 3) negligent misrepresentation. Gorton, 533 N.W.2d at 749, 754. The plaintiffs in Gorton abandoned the breach of warranty claim and the jury rejected the defective product claim, finding in favor of Gorton Farms only on the negligent misrepresentation claim. Id. at 754, 756. In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of T.F. Ltd.'s negligent misrepresentation claim on preemption grounds, leaving only the negligent design and testing claim to be tried on remand Thus, the surviving claim in Gorton was negligent misrepresentation, whereas the surviving claim here was negligent design and testing. These issues are not identical. See Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co., 586 N.W.2d 214-15 (Iowa 1998). Therefore, the doctrine of issue preclusion does not apply and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying T.F. Ltd.'s first application for adjudication of law points, renewed in its second application.
T.F. Ltd.'s second application for adjudication of law points was premised on Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co., Bulter Co. No. 17718-0492, a case that did involve a claim that Scepter was negligently designed and tested. However, the issue did not arise from a "common nucleus of fact," a predicate to finding an identity of issues. Hunter, 300 N.W.2d at 125. Specifically, the district court in Ackerman found that the plaintiff "applied the Scepter herbicide according to its product label directions. . . ." Here, in contrast, it is undisputed that T.F. Ltd. applied the herbicide at a rate less than that specified on the label. Additionally, Ackerman claimed a carryover effect to its corn crop only in the following year, whereas T.F. Ltd. claimed a carryover effect for "subsequent years." In light of these factual differences, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying T.F. Ltd.'s second application for adjudication of law points. IV. Disposition
In Ackerman, the district court dismissed the negligent testing claim. Therefore, T.F. Ltd.'s argument concerning offensive issue preclusion applies only to the negligent design portion of the claim.
We affirm the district court's denial of T.F. Ltd.'s motion to compel and applications for adjudication of law points. We deny T.F. Ltd.'s applications to file a late reply brief and supplemental brief.