IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 07–1856
Filed June 4, 2010
RICHARD W. CURTIS, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Appellee,
vs.
CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E.
Howes, Judge.
The city appeals from a district court ruling denying its motion for
summary judgment. DISTRICT COURT DECISION REVERSED AND
CASE REMANDED.
Ivan T. Webber and James R. Wainwright of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C.,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Terry M. Giebelstein, Thomas D. Waterman, and Richard A.
Davidson of Lane & Waterman LLP, Davenport, for appellee Curtis.
Terrence L. Timmins, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa League
of Cities.
Bruce H. Stoltze of Stoltze & Updegraff, P.C., Des Moines, and
Brad A. Schroeder of Hartung & Schroeder LLP, Des Moines, for amicus
curiae Iowa Trial Lawyers Association.
2
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, Richard W. Curtis, filed this class action against the
appellant, City of Bettendorf, for refunds of franchise fees paid on cable
television services, claiming these fees were illegally exacted by the city.
He sought certification of the class, judgment against the city in an
amount sufficient to compensate him and the other class members for
the illegal tax and interest, attorney fees, a declaration that the franchise
fees are illegal and void, an injunction stopping the city from enforcing
the franchise fees in the future, and other proper relief. The district
court certified the class.
The city filed a motion for summary judgment claiming Iowa Code
section 477A.7(5) (Supp. 2007) relieved it of any liability. Curtis
acknowledged that section 477A.7(5) prospectively legalized the city’s
franchise fees, but resisted the retroactive application of the law claiming
it was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Federal
and State Constitutions. The district court concluded section 477A.7(5)
was not a curative act and held this provision violated the plaintiffs’ due
process rights because it impaired their vested rights. Therefore, the
court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment. The city filed an
application for interlocutory appeal, which we granted. 1
On appeal, the parties raise the identical issues addressed in Zaber
v. City of Dubuque, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2010), a decision we also file
today. Upon our consideration of these issues and for the reasons set
forth in our opinion in Zaber, we hold that section 477A.7(5) does not
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
1This case was combined for appeal with Kleiman v. City of Waterloo, No. 07–
1855; Lindstrom v. City of Des Moines, No. 07–1641; and Zaber v. City of Dubuque, No.
07–1819. The clerk docketed the combined appeals under No. 07–1641.
3
States Constitution or the due process clause of article I, section 9 of the
Iowa Constitution. Because the legislature has ratified the city’s past
assessment and collection of franchise fees, the plaintiffs are not entitled
to a refund of those fees. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the
district court and remand this case to the district court for entry of
summary judgment in favor of the city.
DISTRICT COURT DECISION REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED.
All justices concur except Wiggins and Hecht, JJ., who dissent.
This opinion shall not be published.
4
#07–1856, Curtis v. City of Bettendorf
WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Zaber v. City of
Dubuque, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2010) (Wiggins, J., dissenting).
Hecht, J., joins this dissent.