Reicksview Farms, L. L.C. v. Kiehne

• Decision Date: 28 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. C21-2001-LTS,C21-2001-LTS
• Citation: 541 F.Supp.3d 935
• Parties: REICKSVIEW FARMS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. Ross KIEHNE, DVM, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

541 F.Supp.3d 935

REICKSVIEW FARMS, L.L.C., Plaintiff,

v.Ross KIEHNE, DVM, et al., Defendants.

No. C21-2001-LTS

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

Signed May 28, 2021

Benjamin R. Merrill, Brant D. Kahler, Brown Winick Law Firm, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

James W. Carney, Nicholas J. Mauro, Jasper Paul Verhofste, Carney Appleby Nielsen & Skinner PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

This matter is before me on a motion (Doc. 20) for summary judgment filed by defendants Ross Kiehne, DVM, and Swine Vet Center, P.A. (SVC). Plaintiff Reicksview Farms, L.L.C. (RVF), has filed a resistance (Doc. 21) and defendants have filed a reply (Doc. 22). Oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

RVF filed this action in Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County on December 8, 2020. See Doc. 1. On January 5, 2021, defendants removed the case to this court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. RVF filed an amended complaint (Doc. 14) on March 8, 2021.

RVF alleges that it operated a 10-site, 50,000-head sow farrowing operation in Chickasaw County, Iowa, and contracted with SVC and Dr. Kiehne to provide veterinary services, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mhp) antibody testing every 30 days. RVF contends SVC and Dr. Kiehne oversaw and/or performed the Mhp antibody testing as contracted, except in September and October 2017, when they failed to oversee or perform the testing. As a result, RVF alleges it unknowingly transferred Mhp-infected gilts to third-party customers and to other sites within the RVF sow farrowing operation, resulting in monetary damages, including an increase in production costs, the cost of replacement gilts to sustain its sow farrowing operation and the loss of genetic premiums under various gilt sale agreements with third-party customers. RVF further alleges that Dr. Kiehne has admitted to failing to conduct Mhp antibody testing in September and October 2017.

RVF asserts claims of breach of express contract (Count I), breach of implied-in-fact contract (Count II), promissory estoppel (Count III), breach of contract (implied duty) (Count IV) and professional negligence/malpractice (Count V). In their motion (Doc. 20) for summary judgment, defendants argue that all claims are based on a theory of veterinary malpractice and are barred by the two-year statute of limitations provided in Iowa Code § 614.1(9).

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS

Any party may move for summary judgment regarding all or any part of the claims asserted in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

A material fact is one that " ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ " Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, "the substantive law will identify which facts are material." Id. Facts that are "critical" under the substantive law are material, while facts that are "irrelevant or unnecessary" are not. Id.

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) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ), or when " ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party’ on the question." Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). Evidence that only provides "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, or evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, does not make an issue of material fact genuine.

As such, a genuine issue of material fact requires "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute" so as to "require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The party moving for entry of summary judgment bears "the initial responsibility of informing the 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 (citing Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Mosley v. City of Northwoods , 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005). The nonmovant must show an alleged issue of fact is genuine and material as it relates to the substantive law. If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim or defense with respect to which that party has the burden of proof, then the opposing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

In determining if a genuine issue of material fact is present, I must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587–88, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Further, I must give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Id. However, "because we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we do 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). Instead, "the court's function is to determine whether a dispute about a material fact is genuine." Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc. , 90 F.3d 1372, 1376–77 (8th Cir. 1996).

III. RELEVANT FACTS

The following facts are undisputed for purposes of this motion. All acts alleged in the amended complaint (Doc. 14) were committed within the scope and course of Dr. Kiehne's employment as agent and owner of SVC. On January 3, 2018, Dr. Kiehne informed RVF that Mhp antibody tests had not been performed as provided by the parties’ contract. RVF filed suit on December 8, 2020. Counts I, II and III are based on defendants’ failure to perform the contracted testing. Count IV is premised on defendants’ implied duty to provide veterinary services in accordance with the learning, skill, care and diligence of a careful and trustworthy veterinarian. Count V alleges that defendants committed professional negligence and malpractice.

IV. ANALYSIS

This case presents a question that, surprisingly, has not been addressed by Iowa's courts: What is the statute of limitations in Iowa for claims arising out of veterinary malpractice? The parties agree that the Iowa Code does not specify a statute of limitations for claims arising out of veterinary malpractice and no court has determined the period of limitation for such claims in Iowa. Defendants argue the most analogous statute of limitations is the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims under Iowa Code § 614.1(9). RVF argues its claims fall within the five-year statute of limitations for unwritten contracts, injuries to property and "all other actions" as provided in Iowa Code § 614.1(4). Section 614.1 reads as follows, in relevant part:

Actions may be brought within the times limited as follows, respectively, after their causes accrue, and not afterwards, except when otherwise specially declared:

4. Unwritten contracts-injuries to property-fraud-other actions. Those founded on unwritten contracts, those brought for injuries to property, or for relief on the ground of fraud in cases heretofore solely cognizable in a court of chancery, and all other actions not otherwise provided for in this respect, within five years, except as provided by subsections 8 [wages] and 10 [secured interest in farm products].

....

9. Malpractice.

a. Except as provided in paragraph "b", those founded on injuries to the person or wrongful death against any physician and surgeon, osteopathic physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatric physician, optometrist, pharmacist, chiropractor, physician assistant, or nurse, licensed under chapter 147, or a hospital licensed under chapter 135B, arising out of patient care, within two years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of, the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action, whichever of the dates occurs first, but in no event shall any action be brought more than six years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in the action to have been the cause of the injury or death unless a foreign object unintentionally left in the body cause the injury or death.

b. An action subject to paragraph "a" and brought on behalf of a minor who was under the age of eight years when the act, omission, or occurrence alleged in the action occurred shall be commenced no later than the minor's tenth birthday or as provided in paragraph "a", whichever is later.

Iowa Code § 614.1. "When disagreement arises as to which of the several periods of limitation contained in Iowa Code section 614.1 is applicable, [the court] must determine ... which of the types of actions described in the statute most nearly characterizes the action before the court." Kostoglanis v. Yates , 956 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Scott v. Sioux City , 432 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 1988) ). I must consider the "actual nature of the action," as the question "turns on the nature of...