IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1553
Filed June 3, 2020
BELA ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE AND RESCUE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CITY OF DES MOINES, DES MOINES CITY COUNCIL, CHRISTINE HENSLEY,
CHRIS COLEMAN, SKIP MOORE, LINDA WESTERGAARD, BILL GRAY, and
T.M. FRANKLIN COWNIE,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, Douglas
F. Staskal, and Jeanie Vaudt, Judges.
A municipality and several officials appeal following a district court ruling
determining their motion for summary judgment to be moot. APPEAL
DISMISSED.
Michelle Mackel-Weideranders and Lawrence Dempsey (until withdrawal),
Des Moines, for appellants.
Jaysen C. McCleary, Des Moines, and Cami N. Eslick, Indianola, for
appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
Bela Animal Legal Defense and Rescue (Bela) sued the City of Des Moines,
its city council, and individual city officials (collectively, City). The petition and
amended petition forwarded the following counts: (1) “writ of certiorari,”1
(2) “violation of Iowa public records law . . . and request for writ of mandamus,”2
and (3) “negligent retention.”3 The district court granted the City’s motion to
dismiss as to counts one and three but denied the motion as to count two.
Thereafter, Bela filed a “joint application for interlocutory appeal and petition for
writ of certiorari,” which the supreme court denied. Then the City moved for
dismissal and summary judgment. While those motions were pending, Bela filed
a motion dismissing its claims under count two, without prejudice, but additionally
requesting the court to “correct prior erroneous rulings as to other matters.” The
City resisted, requesting a ruling on its motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment as to count two. Following a hearing, the court deemed the City’s
motions to dismiss and for summary judgment moot because Bela’s dismissal of
count two left “no claims remain[ing] for resolution.” The court denied Bela’s
request to modify prior rulings. Bela appealed, and the City cross-appealed.
Prior to submission of the appeal, and after considerable motion litigation
and interim orders, a three-justice panel of the supreme court dismissed Bela’s
appeal, and allowed the City to proceed with its cross-appeal, designating the City
1 This claim alleged the City acted illegally, under a conflict of interest, and contrary
to public policy in approving a city contract with the Animal Rescue League of Iowa
(ARL).
2 This claim generally alleged the City and ARL improperly failed to disclose
documentation and data.
3 This claim alleged the City was negligent in retaining certain employees.
3
and its officials as the appellants going forward. Bela filed a motion to reinstate its
appeal. While that motion was pending, Bela filed its “final brief by appellant” and
appendix. In a single-justice order, the supreme court denied the motion to
reinstate and struck Bela’s brief and appendix, and the order was subsequently
affirmed by a three-justice panel. Thereafter, the supreme court denied Bela’s
applications for additional time to file an appellee’s brief.
After the case was transferred to this court and submitted for our
consideration, Bela filed a motion to submit a finished appellee’s proof brief and
for waiver of the default penalty. The circumstances raised in alleged support of
said motion were in existence for months prior to the last order from the supreme
court that denied Bela’s motion requesting additional time to file a brief. The City
filed a resistance. Upon our review, we deny Bela’s motion to submit a brief and
for waiver of the default penalty.
On appeal, the City argues the district court should have ruled on its motion
for summary judgment, claiming that if it had won the motion for summary
judgment, Bela’s petition would have been dismissed with prejudice—thus
preventing Bela from bringing that same claim in the future—rather than without
prejudice per Bela’s voluntary dismissal. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.943. The City asks
us to conclude the district court erred by granting Bela additional time to respond
to the City’s motion for summary judgment, that such error was an abuse of
discretion, and the case should be remanded for the district court to rule on its
motion.
The lawsuit in this case was brought by Bela. Two of three counts were
dismissed upon the City’s motion by district court order. The supreme court denied
4
Bela’s petition for writ of certiorari and application for interlocutory review as to said
order. Thereafter, Bela dismissed the remaining claims under count two—which
were not subjects of Bela’s petition for a writ of certiorari and application for
interlocutory review—before the district court ruled on the City’s motion for
summary judgment. There remains no lawsuit in which the district could rule on
the City’s motion for summary judgment.
The City argues the issue is not moot, that there remains an existing
controversy. See In re Marriage of White, 912 N.W.2d 494, 498 (Iowa Ct. App.
2018) (noting an issue is moot when “[t]here is no remaining controversy”). The
problem with the City’s argument is the controversy the City claims exists is no
longer subject to a court proceeding, at least the specific proceeding precipitating
this appeal. The voluntary dismissal of count two by Bela,4 the district court’s
denial of Bela’s request for modification of prior rulings, and the supreme court’s
dismissal of Bela’s appeal disposed of the issues in this matter. There is no
pending district court proceeding to which we could remand this case. All of Bela’s
substantive claims against the City in this matter have been dismissed. There is
no remaining justiciable controversy as to the issues presented in this appeal. See
id.
The question before us is not whether the issues raised in the summary-
judgment motion were moot in the district court, the question is whether they have
been rendered moot in this appeal. “[A]n appeal is moot if the ‘issue becomes
4 The legality of the voluntary dismissal has not been challenged on appeal. We
offer no opinion as to whether such a challenge would have had merit; we only
emphasize the finality of the dismissal in this case.
5
nonexistent or academic and, consequently, no longer involves a justiciable
controversy.’” In re B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Iowa 2013) (quoting State v.
Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002)). Because there are no
pending claims against the City in this proceeding, the questions of whether the
court abused its discretion or erred in allowing Bela additional time to respond to
the City’s motion for summary judgment and declining to rule on the motion are
moot. The fact that the dismissal of count two was without prejudice and Bela
could potentially refile the claim does not breathe new life into the controversy in
this proceeding. While the City claims “the issue remains unresolved,” it is
resolved upon the record before us. While refiling could resurrect the controversy,
it would do so in a different proceeding, not the one now before us on appeal. We
dismiss the appeal as moot. See White, 912 N.W.2d at 498.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Bela Animal Legal Defense and Rescue v. City of Des Moines, Des Moines City Council, Christine Hensley, Chris Coleman, Skip Moore, Linda Westergaard, Bill Gray, and T.M. Franklin Cownie
Combined Opinion