IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 07–1855

Filed June 4, 2010

ROBERT P. KLEIMAN, On Behalf of 

Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,

Appellee,

vs.

CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA,

Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jon C.

Fister, 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 Kleiman.

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, Robert Kleiman, filed this class action against the 

appellant, City of Waterloo, 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. Kleiman 

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 Curtis v. City of Bettendorf, No. 07–

1856; 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

#07–1855, Kleiman v. City of Waterloo

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.