Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. C01-3015-MWB.,C01-3015-MWB. |
| Citation | 302 F.Supp.2d 1023 |
| Parties | Timothy J. KNUTSON, Plaintiff, v. AG PROCESSING, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Blake Parker, Blake, Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, Michael J. Carroll, Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, PC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Becky S. Knutson, Lisa L. Ash, Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL REINSTATEMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FRONT PAY; DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1027
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 1028
A. Arguments Of The Parties ...................................... 1028
B. Jurisdiction .................................................. 1030
C. Defendant's Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment .............. 1032
1. Monetary relief ............................................ 1032
2. Injunctive relief (order of reinstatement) ................. 1033
a. Likelihood of AGP's success on the merits ............... 1035
b. Irreparable injury to AGP absent a stay ................. 1036
c. Substantial harm to Knutson if a stay is granted ........ 1038
d. Public interest ......................................... 1038
D. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Reinstatement .................... 1039
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 1041
On July 28, 2003, this court filed its "Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, Alternatively, for New Trial; Plaintiff's Motion for Prohibitory Injunction, for Reinstatement; Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs" (Doc. No. 88) in this case, awarding plaintiff Timothy Knutson ("Knutson") the following relief:
• Reinstatement to the position of boiler operator in Ag Processing, Inc.'s ("AGP") Eagle Grove, Iowa plant.
• Enjoining AGP from "any further perceptions of disability discrimination and any retaliatory conduct toward Mr. Knutson" following the plaintiff's reinstatement.
• Attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $29,659.06.
• Judgment on the jury's award of backpay and punitive damages in the amounts of $55,345.72 and $90,000, respectively.
Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., 273 F.Supp.2d 961, 1022-23 (N.D.Iowa 2003). On August 27, 2003, AGP filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a number of issues, including but not limited to, the propriety of the court's order of reinstatement and injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 96). On September 10, 2003, plaintiff Knutson filed a Motion to Compel Reinstatement or in the Alternative Front Pay, in which the plaintiff states that he has not yet been reinstated in violation of the judgment of this court, and seeks an order of this court either compelling AGP to reinstate him, or alternatively, awarding him front pay from the date of the judgment through the date of his eventual reinstatement. (Doc. No. 97). On September 10, 2003, Knutson also filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding this court's ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Prohibitory Injunction and Reinstatement denying front pay to the point of reinstatement. (Doc. No. 96). On October 3, 2003, AGP filed both a timely resistance to the plaintiff's motion to compel reinstatement, as well as a Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 104 & 105). Plaintiff Knutson filed a Reply Brief in response to the Defendant's resistance to his motion to compel reinstatement on October 10, 2003. (Doc. No. 106). On October 14, 2003, Knutson filed a response to AGP's motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment. (Doc. No. 107). On October 21, 2003, AGP filed a reply to Knutson's response to AGP's motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment. This matter is now fully submitted to the court.
Oral arguments on the plaintiff's motion to compel reinstatement and the defendant's motion to stay execution of judgment were held on February 12, 2004. At oral argument plaintiff Timothy J. Knutson was represented by Blake Parker of the Blake Parker Law Office in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Defendant AGP was represented by Becky Knutson of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts in Des Moines, Iowa.
Plaintiff Knutson asserts, and AGP does not deny, that despite the order of this court on July 28, 2003, requiring that Knutson be reinstated to the position of boiler room operator in AGP's Eagle Grove, Iowa plant, that AGP has not yet made any efforts to reinstate the plaintiff. As such:
every day that goes by without reinstatement, the plaintiff loses out on a days worth of pay, without any ability to recoup that loss. With the case now on appeal — and with no offer coming from AGP to reinstate the plaintiff — the plaintiff is looking at an additional six months to a year without employment and without a paycheck. There is no downside to the defendant to appealing the case. They get to "thumb their nose" at the Court's decision, yet not have to pay any front pay to the date of the Appeals Court decision — if the decision is not in their favor. The only option available to plaintiff is to compel the current court order.
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Reinstatement or in the Alternative Front Pay, Doc. No. 97, at pg. 2 ("Plf.'s Brief I"). Relying on the fact that reinstatement is the favored remedy for unlawful employment discrimination, and that the language of this court's order is mandatory, the plaintiff asks that the court compel AGP to reinstate the plaintiff. In the alternative, should the court determine that compelling reinstatement is not appropriate, the plaintiff argues that an award of front pay, from the time of the judgment on July 28, 2003 until Knutson is reinstated, would be appropriate: "As an alternative the Court could order that the plaintiff be given a pay check — comparable to wages of a boiler operator at the AGP plant in Eagle Grove — each pay period, until such time as the appeal is completed." Plf.'s Brief I at pg. 3-4.
In response to the plaintiff's motion to compel, defendant AGP filed a motion to stay execution of the judgment coupled with its resistance to the plaintiff's motion to compel reinstatement. In it's brief in support of both its resistance and motion to stay, AGP asserts that it is unequivocally entitled to a stay of enforcement of the monetary portion of the judgment upon the posting of a supersedeas bond with the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), and further that it is entitled to a stay of the nonmonetary portion of the judgment (i.e. reinstatement) by virtue of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c). AGP states that it is more than willing to post a bond "to cover the cost of Mr. Knutson's pay pending the outcome of appeal." Defendant's Brief in Support of its Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment and Resistance to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Reinstatement, Doc. Nos. 104 & 105, at pg. 9 ("Def.'s Brief I"). AGP then asserts that as the authorities proffered by plaintiff to support his motion to compel reinstatement do not account for situations where the opposing party has filed a motion to stay execution of judgment, that the plaintiff's motion to compel reinstatement or alternatively grant front pay should be denied.
In response to AGP's motion to stay execution of the judgment, plaintiff asserts that defendant is not entitled to a stay on the execution of the nonmonetary portions of the judgment (i.e.reinstatement), for failure to meet the requisite four factor test. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) (). Specifically, plaintiff asserts that AGP has failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits in the appeal, and that the balancing of the harms clearly weighs in Knutson's favor. With regard to the issue of front pay, Knutson argues that AGP, in arguing for a stay of the nonmonetary relief, has supported the idea of front pay with its statements that it is "willing to post an appropriate bond to cover the cost of Mr. Knutson's pay pending the outcome of the appeal." Def.'s Brief I at pg. 9. Plaintiff asserts that the Iowa legislature has addressed this scenario, in that Iowa Code § 91A.8 penalizes employers who fail to pay required wages by making them pay the injured employee twice the wages withheld. Knutson asserts that, under section 91A.8, that AGP wrongfully, and knowingly, does not pay Knutson his wages during the time pending appeal, "[AGP] should be required to pay twice the wages that would regularly be due." Plaintiff's Reply Brief to Defendant's Brief in Support of Resistance to Motion to Compel Reinstatement, Doc. No. 106, at pg. 4 ("Plf.'s Brief II"). In closing, Knutson prays that the court not stay the order of reinstatement, but if reinstatement is stayed that the court: (1) order AGP to pay front pay from the time of the court's judgment on July 28, 2003 until the time the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the matter; (2) order AGP to pay Knutson twice the amount of unpaid wages as "required by the state legislature"; and (3) to order a supersedeas bond in an amount adequate to protect Knutson if AGP does not prevail on appeal.1 Plf.'s Brief II at pg. 5-6.
Defendant AGP filed a reply in support of its motion to stay execution, which focused on disputing two of the plaintiff's assertions. First, AGP argues that Iowa Code Chapter 91A is inapplicable as it does not apply to wages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.K. v. 4–H
...is deemed necessary to preserve the status quo and to ensure the effectiveness of the eventual judgment.’ ” Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1033 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904 (2d ed.2012)). The court conside......
-
Kemin Foods v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro
...In fact, to satisfy this burden on appeal, PIVEG must "show `serious questions going to the merits.'" Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1035 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (citations omitted). A reiteration of objections and arguments already considered by the district court is usually i......
-
Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
...stay are not met here. See FED.R.CIV.P. 62(c) (permitting a stay of an injunction pending appeal); see also Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1034 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (identifying the pertinent factors warranting such a stay as (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong ......
-
Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States
...Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003); Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1988); Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1032 (N.D. Iowa 2004); In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977); Shaw v. United States, 213 F.3d 545, 5......