IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0808

Filed May 16, 2018

BRANDON MICHAEL AMES d/b/a TQC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

TAMATHA LOUISE ELDER,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, John M. Wright, 

Judge.

A plaintiff appeals the district court’s discovery sanctions. REVERSED 

AND REMANDED.

Curtis Dial of Law Office of Curtis Dial, Keokuk, for appellant.

Elaine F. Gray of Fehseke & Gray Law Offices, Fort Madison, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Judge.

Brandon Ames is a construction contractor who was hired by Tamatha Elder 

to work on her roof. Ames bought materials and started the job in May 2016, and 

he finished in July. Elder refused to pay Ames for his work or reimburse him for 

materials purchased. Ames filed a petition in August seeking recovery for the fees 

for his services and the cost of materials. Elder filed an answer and counterclaims 

in September. 

A trial scheduling order and discovery plan establishing deadlines for 

discovery was filed in October. Elder filed a request for production of documents, 

a request for admissions, and interrogatories in December. The responses to 

Elder’s request for admissions were due on January 22, 2017. On that date, Ames 

filed a motion to extend the time to respond until February 6. The court granted 

his motion. Ames failed to respond to Elder’s discovery requests and on February

16, Elder filed a motion to compel discovery. The district court filed an order 

compelling discovery on March 6, requiring Ames to respond to all discovery 

requests by March 13, as trial was scheduled for March 22. 

Ames did not respond to Elder’s discovery requests by March 13 but filed a 

motion to continue trial. Elder opposed the motion and requested discovery 

sanctions on March 14. Ames did not resist Elder’s motion for sanctions or request 

a hearing. On March 21, the court ordered sanctions against Ames:

Plaintiff/Counter-claim Defendant Brandon Ames DBA TQC shall not 

be allowed to support his claims against Elder or oppose the 

defenses of Elder to his claims; further, Plaintiff/Counter-claim 

Defendant Brandon Ames DBA TQC shall not be allowed to oppose 

the claims of Elder against him or support any defenses to those 

claims; finally, to the extent not already prohibited, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Brandon Ames DBA TQC shall not be allowed to 
3

introduce any exhibits or witnesses in evidence at trial of the parties’

claims scheduled to begin March 22, 2017 and scheduled to 

conclude March 23, 2017.

Trial took place on March 22,1 and on March 23, the court filed its order 

finding Ames failed to prove the claims asserted in his petition and entering 

judgment dismissing Ames’s claims, ruling in favor of Elder’s counterclaim, and 

ordering attorney’s fees. On April 7, Ames filed a motion to vacate the order and 

a motion for a new trial pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1004, alleging 

the court failed to schedule a hearing before granting sanctions. The motion was

resisted and summarily denied. Ames appeals the court’s order denying his 

motion to vacate and grant a new trial, and he asks us to vacate the judgment 

against him, reverse the order granting sanctions, and remand for a new trial. 

Ames argues there were “[e]rrors of law occurring in the proceedings, or 

mistakes of fact by the court.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1004(8). Ames argues the district 

court committed errors of law by failing to allow him the opportunity of a hearing.

See Schwarz v. Meyer, 500 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (“Before a court 

can impose discovery sanctions, an affected party must be afforded the 

opportunity of a hearing.”); see also Schwarzenbach v. Schwarzenbach, 446 

N.W.2d 475, 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (comparing discovery sanctions to contempt 

in holding that sanctions cannot be imposed without a hearing.). Without a 

hearing, the district court could not conclude whether the sanctions imposed, which 

amounted to a dismissal of Ames’s claims, were appropriate.2

 

1 We have no record of the trial proceedings, and neither party indicated discovery 

sanctions were discussed at trial.

2 The sanctions imposed on Ames amount to a dismissal. Ames was not allowed to 

support his claims against Elder, defend Elder’s cross-claims, or present any witnesses or 
4

“We review the denial of a motion for new trial based on the grounds 

asserted in the motion.” Fry v. Blauvelt, 818 N.W.2d 123, 128 (Iowa 2012) 

(citations omitted). “Ultimately, ‘we are reluctant to interfere with a jury verdict’ or 

the district court’s consideration of a motion for new trial made in response to the 

verdict.” Id. (citation omitted). “Under rule 1.1004, a district court should only grant 

a new trial if one of the grounds listed in the rule applies and the movant’s 

substantial rights were materially affected.” Id. at 130; see also Iowa R. Civ. 

P. 1.1004. Here, the district court committed an error of law by entering judgment 

after failing to allow Ames a hearing before the imposition of discovery sanctions. 

Ames’s substantial rights were materially affected. Ames’s due process rights 

were limited by the imposition of sanctions without a hearing, and as a result of the 

sanctions imposed, his case was effectively dismissed. See Falstaff Brewing 

Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 783–84 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the 

court’s imposition of sanctions must be consistent with due process 

requirements.).

Because the district court committed an error of law by failing to hold a 

 

evidence. “Generally, in civil matters, the party bearing the burden of proof must establish 

the elements of his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence.” Iowa Supreme 

Court Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Remer, 617 N.W.2d 269, 271 (Iowa 2000). By 

limiting Ames’s ability to prove the elements of his case, the court effectively dismissed 

his case.
5

hearing on discovery sanctions, and Ames was prejudiced as a result, we reverse

and remand for a new trial. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.