Garloff v. Shaffer

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: C.J. Williams United States District Judge Northern District of Iowa
• Decision Date: 11 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-CV-4013-CJW-MAR,No. 19-CV-4040-CJW-MAR,19-CV-4040-CJW-MAR,19-CV-4013-CJW-MAR
• Citation: Garloff v. Shaffer, No. 19-CV-4013-CJW-MAR, No. 19-CV-4040-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa Feb 11, 2020)
• Parties: ALLAN GARLOFF and WANDA GARLOFF, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. KIM A. SHAFFER, as Trustee of the RUTH A. DRAUT REVOCABLE TRUST, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. KIM SHAFFER, as Trustee of the RUTH A. DRAUT REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. ALLAN GARLOFF and WANDA GARLOFF, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

ALLAN GARLOFF and WANDA GARLOFF, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. KIM A. SHAFFER,as Trustee of the RUTH A. DRAUT REVOCABLE TRUST, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

KIM SHAFFER,as Trustee of the RUTH A. DRAUT REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. ALLAN GARLOFF and WANDA GARLOFF, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

No. 19-CV-4040-CJW-MAR

No. 19-CV-4013-CJW-MAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

February 11, 2020

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) and plaintiffs' Motion to Deny the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, Alternatively for an Extension Under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (Doc. 21).¹ Plaintiffs timely resisted defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) and defendant filed a timely reply (Doc. 25). Defendant also timely resisted plaintiffs' Motion to Deny the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, Alternatively for an Extension Under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d). (Doc. 24).

For the following reasons, defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiffs' Motion to Deny the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, Alternatively for an Extension Under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (Doc. 21) is granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In July 1997, Ruth A. Draut ("Draut") created the Ruth A. Draut Revocable Trust ("Trust"). (Doc. 23-1, at 1). Draut funded the Trust by transferring parcels of real property she owned to the Trust. (Id.). On May 20, 1998, Draut transferred farmland she owned in Dickinson County, Iowa ("Dickinson County property") to the Trust in fee simple via a warranty deed. (Id., at 1-2). All property in the Trust was to be administered in accordance with the Trust's terms. (Id., at 2). Draut served as the Trust's original trustee and designated Kim A. Shaffer ("defendant") to serve as the successor trustee when Draut became unwilling or unable to perform her duties. (Id., at 3). On July 20, 2018, Draut passed away at the age of 85. (Id., at 4). Defendant took over as trustee following Draut's death. (Id.).

Draut rented out the Dickinson County property as farmland in the years preceding her death. On August 27, 2010, Draut signed a lease for the Dickinson County property with George Garloff ("George"). (Doc. 26, at 3). George paid Draut $9,500 cash rent"per year for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 crop years." (Id.). On December 20, 2013, shortly after George's death, Draut signed a lease for the farmland with George's son, Allan Garloff, one of the plaintiffs in this matter. (Id., at 3-4). Under the lease, plaintiffs paid Draut $15,000 cash rent "per year for the 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 crop years." (Id., at 4). On April 28, 2017, Draut signed another lease with plaintiffs to rent the land for the crop years 2018-2022. (Doc. 23-1, at 3). Plaintiffs paid Draut $15,000 for the 2018 crop year before Draut passed away. (Doc. 26, at 4).

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves three related matters. First, on April 8, 2019, defendant filed suit against plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. (Doc. 1, No. 19-CV-4013). Defendant alleged claims for failure to follow trust formalities, undue influence, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and trespass. (Id., at 5-8). Second, on the same day defendant filed suit against plaintiffs, defendant also filed suit against Mark and Bryan Tewes (collectively, the "Tewes") in this Court. (Doc. 1, No. 19-CV-4014). Defendant's action against the Tewes involved similar facts and raised the same claims for failure to follow trust formalities, undue influence, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and trespass. (Id., at 5-8). Third, on June 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County. (Doc. 2). Plaintiffs sought a declaration from the Iowa District Court that their agricultural lease for the Dickinson County property was valid. (Id., at 3). Defendant removed the state court action to this Court on grounds that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1332. (Doc. 1, at 1).

On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts requested position statements from plaintiffs, defendant, and the Tewes regarding consolidation of the above matters. (Doc. 8). In his October 1, 2019 order, Judge Roberts noted that the three cases involved similar parties, disputes over the validity of similar farm leases, andsimilar claims. (Id., at 2). The Order noted, however, that two of the matters involved different parcels of real estate and different leases. (Id.). The parties did not object to consolidating 19-CV-4013 and 19-CV-4040, the two cases involving plaintiffs. Defendant did, however, object to case 19-CV-4014 (involving the Tewes) being consolidated with the other two cases involving plaintiffs because the cases involved several factual differences. (Doc. 11). Thus, the Court ordered 19-CV-4013 and 19-CV-4040 to be consolidated but ordered 19-CV-4014 to proceed independently. (Doc. 12).

On October 1, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order with various deadlines, including a May 22, 2020 discovery deadline, and June 24, 2020 dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 7). The case is currently scheduled for a jury trial to commence on December 28, 2020. (Doc. 13, at 3).

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). When asserting that a fact is undisputed or is genuinely disputed, a party must support the assertion by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Alternatively, a party may show that "the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B). More specifically, a "party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).

A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law[.]" Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (citation omitted). "An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record," Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted), or "when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the question," Wood v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence that presents only "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), or evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, does not make an issue of fact genuine. In sum, a genuine issue of material fact requires "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute" that it requires "a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Id. at 249 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The party moving for summary judgment bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citation omitted). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or other evidence designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Mosley v. City of Northwoods, 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005).

In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587-88 (citation omitted); see also Reed v. City of St. Charles, 561 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the facts "in a light most favorableto the non-moving party—as long as those facts are not so 'blatantly contradicted by the record . . . that no reasonable jury could believe' them") (alteration in original) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). A court does "not weigh the evidence or attempt to determine the credibility of the witnesses." Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Rather, a "court's function is to determine whether a dispute about a material fact is genuine[.]" Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir. 1996). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court "need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).

A court need not wait until discovery is completed before ruling on a summary judgment motion. Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 836 (8th Cir. 2015). The non-moving party may, however, seek a continuance until adequate discovery is completed. Toben v.Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 894 (8th Cir. 2014). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) "allows a party to request a delay in granting summary judgment if the party can make a good faith showing that postponement of the ruling would enable it to discover...