Wagner v. Jones
| Decision Date | 08 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:09–cv–10.,3:09–cv–10. |
| Citation | 928 F.Supp.2d 1084 |
| Parties | Teresa R. WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn JONES, Dean of Iowa College of Law (in her individual capacity); Gail B. Agrawal, Dean of the Iowa College of Law (in her official capacity), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John F. Doak, Stephen T. Fieweger, Katz Huntoon & Fieweger, Moline, IL, Peter C. Fieweger, Katz Huntoon & Fieweger PC, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff.
George A. Carroll, Jordan Esbrook, Iowa Attorney General, Diane M. Stahle, Iowa Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
Before the Court are the following motions: 1) Teresa Wagner's (“Plaintiff”) Objection 1 to Entry of Judgment on Count I (“Pl.'s Objection”) (Clerk's No. 126), filed October 25, 2012; 2) Carolyn Jones' and Gail Agrawal's (“Defendants”) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) ( ) (Clerk's No. 130), filed November 1, 2012; 3) Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply to Resistance to Objection to Entry of Judgment on Count I or, in Alternative, Request that the Court Consider the Response Brief Filed by Defendants ( ) (Clerk's No. 131), filed November 9, 2012; 4) Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (“Pl.'s Mot. for New Trial”) (Clerk's No. 133), filed November 20, 2012; 5) Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment or Alternatively Motion for Relief from Judgment, filed November 26, 2012 (“Pl.'s Mot. to Alter”) (Clerk's No. 135); and 6) Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Additional Authority in Support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment ( ) (Clerk's No. 138), filed December 10, 2012. Defendants filed a resistance to Plaintiff's Objection on October 29, 2012. Clerk's No. 129. Plaintiff replied on October 31, 2012.2 Clerk's No. 130. Plaintiff filed a resistance to Defendants' Motion for JAML on November 19, 2012. Clerk's No. 132. Defendants replied on November 28, 2012. Clerk's No. 136. Plaintiff filed a resistance to Defendants' Motion to Strike on November 26, 2012. Clerk's No. 134. Defendants filed a resistance to Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial on December 6, 2012. Clerk's No. 137. Defendants filed a resistance to Plaintiff's Motion to Alter on December 12, 2012. Clerk's No. 139. Plaintiff filed a resistance to Defendants' Motion for Leave on December 21, 2012. Clerk's No. 140. Defendants replied on December 31, 2012. Clerk's No. 141. The matters are fully submitted.
On October 15, 2012, trial in this case commenced in Davenport, Iowa. See Clerk's No. 102. After several days of testimony, the jury began deliberations on two counts from Plaintiff's Complaint at the end of the trial day on October 22, 2012. Clerk's No. 110. Specifically, the jury was tasked with deciding Plaintiff's claims of: 1) political discrimination; and 2) equal protection, both arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3
The jury deliberated the entire day on October 23, 2012, with United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Shields presiding over the deliberations with the consent of the parties. On October 24, 2012, the jury continued deliberations. At around 9:00 in the morning, the jury sent a note asking, “What happens if we cannot come to an agreement?” See Clerk's No. 121. After consulting with the attorneys and with the undersigned, Judge Shields advised the jury to continue its deliberations in an attempt to arrive at a unanimous verdict.4
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on October 24, 2012, Judge Shields received another note from the jury, signed by all twelve jurors, which stated: “We are unable to come to a unanimous verdict for either the Plaintiff, Teresa Wagner, nor Defendant, Carolyn Jones.” See Clerk's No. 122. In a colloquy between the undersigned, Judge Shields, and counsel, the following occurred, in pertinent part:
The Court: [S]o my first question is we don't know if this pertains to one of the submitted counts or both of the submitted counts, I am assuming, maybe this is an assumption I should not make, it pertains to both counts that the jury has, the discrimination claim and the equal protection claim, so if that is something I should put my trust in, that is that both counts they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict, I want to know the Plaintiff's sense, I think I know the answer to this based upon Mr. Fieweger's earlier e-mail, I suspect, Mr. Fieweger, is it fair to say you still want the Court to give an instruction, better known as the Allen charge, which is in the patter instructions is 3.07?
Mr. Fieweger: I do.
The Court: Mr. Carroll, what is the Defendant's position?
Mr. Carroll: I disagree with giving that instruction, certainly at this point in time.... I honestly think they should be told, I mean number one, go back and deliberate; but if they're saying—if that's their note, that's fine; but if, you know, if Plaintiff is saying you must given the Allen, then I have a proposal instead of that.... I also think that—and I understand what the Allen instruction is, it is so unbelievably coercive to jurors that the Court is saying people, go back, when they've tried so hard and I know the Allen instructions has been approved, but I disagree that there should be any Allen instruction.
The Court: Mr. Carroll, the circuit approved it in a case called Williams v. Fermenta Animal Health Co., 924 [984] F.2d 261 [ (8th Cir.1993) ], a 1993 case in which they said there's no error where the District Court gave the Allen charge to a civil jury in an employment discrimination case.
Mr. Carroll: I must admit I wasn't aware of that decision, Your Honor, but I still am objecting.
The Court: I don't disagree, Mr. Carroll. You make a very good point and what my law clerk just told me we have done historically, that is I am talking about myself, is that I've always said go back and deliberate again, keep deliberating before I have given the Allen charge. Here is the problem I think with that now. The Magistrate Judge has already instructed them continue your deliberations, and Judge Shields, am I correct, that that is the status of your communications with the jury?
That is correct, Judge Pratt. That is the last written Order that I gave them.
The Court: And that—
Mr. Fieweger: And that was back at like 9:30, wasn't it Judge?
Judge Shields: That's correct.
Mr. Fieweger: Okay. they've been deliberating now for another two hours with no progress and a note that is signed by all 12 saying they can't agree on anything.
The Court: I am reading the committee comments to 3.07 and, you know, my sense is to tell them one more time, continue your deliberations, and if we get another note, then give the Allen charge; but, you know, I want to hear from both of you. Maybe that's too, quote, conservative, and on the other hand, maybe it is too, quote, explosive to give them the Allen charge now. Mr. Fieweger, you are still firm that you want it?
Mr. Fieweger: Right. [cites and discusses additional case law].
The Court: Okay.
Mr. Fieweger: Mr. Carroll.
Mr. Carroll: I don't have those cases in front of me nor have I done that research. I continue to object to the Allen charge....
...
The Court: Okay. Here is what the Court is going to do. I am going to tell Judge Shields to tell them to continue to deliberate then after lunch I am going to give them the Allen charge ... because I am going to have them eat lunch, Tom is going to tell them now—Judge Shields is going to say continue to deliberate, and then after lunch I am going to have Tom read—have Judge Shields read them the Allen Charge.
Oct. 24, 2012 Trial Tr. at 5–10.5
At approximately 1:11 p.m. on October 24, 2012, Judge Shields convened the jury in open court and read the jury the Allen charge. See id. at 11–13. At around 3:24 p.m., Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Fieweger, requested by email that a mistrial be declared. See Clerk's No. 126–2 at 4 (). At approximately 4:00 p.m., the undersigned and counsel held a brief conference call wherein Defendants' counsel, George Carroll, stated that he needed to discuss the matter with his clients.6See id. at 3. A short time later, the Court received another note from the jury, which stated: 7 Clerk's No. 124.
At approximately 4:30 p.m. on October 24, 2012, Judge Shields again convened the jury in open court. See Clerk's No. 114 (Clerk's Court Minutes from October 24, 2012). After reciting the contents of the jury's note, the following colloquy ensued:
Ladies and gentlemen, is this the consensus of all of you as to the contents of this note? [Judge Shields individually asks each juror if this is their consensus and each juror responds “Yes”]. I am going to declare a mistrial and I want to say a few things. I don't want to keep you, I know this has been a long period for you. Judge Pratt wants you to know he really appreciates everything that you have done in working as hard as you have. He wanted me to assure you that this is not a failure. These things happen. There are no guarantees in a lawsuit what will happen, what will not happen. Sometimes there are just the inabilities for people to agree as to verdicts and we recognize that. That is why there is a mistrial. There is nothing at all that any of you should feel that lessens your service here. We appreciate this. We know this is a—a serious imposition on your personal and business lives, no question. I will tell you, after I was a Judge, I served on a jury in state court so it...
To continue reading
Request your trial