John Berman v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1050
Filed November 13, 2024
JOHN BERMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.
A California resident appeals rulings denying his motion to reopen a civil
cause of action alleging extortion and his motion to disqualify the assigned judge.
AFFIRMED.
John Berman, Cedar Rapids, self-represented appellant.
David L. Brown of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. Gamble, S.J.,
takes no part.
2
TABOR, Chief Judge.
California resident John Berman—as a self-represented litigant—sued
Minnesota Lawyers Mutual (MLM) Insurance Company for civil extortion in June
2018.1 Berman is a remainder beneficiary of his mother’s trust, the Bella U.
Berman Living Trust, administered in Maryland. The trustee is a Maryland
attorney, David Modell, who is insured by MLM. Another Maryland attorney,
Kristen Draper, represented Modell in his capacity as trustee. The California
courts ordered Berman to pay fees and costs incurred in Draper’s defense of
Modell. MLM filed a subrogation claim against the trust in Maryland seeking
reimbursement from Berman’s distributive share. Draper emailed Berman
informing him of MLM’s subrogation claim, which required Modell to delay
distribution of the trust proceeds until it was resolved.
In response, Berman filed a civil extortion action in Iowa, alleging that
Draper’s email was a threat on behalf of MLM “to injure Berman’s Trust-distribution
property by taking the Trust-distribution money for MLM’s use.”2 In defending his
choice of forum, Berman alleged that MLM does business in Iowa. In November
2018, the Polk County district court dismissed the suit, finding that it lacked
authority to hear Berman’s claim of extortion because none of the alleged conduct
occurred in Iowa. See Hall v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 N.W.2d 421, 424
1 Berman lists a Cedar Rapids address on his court filings.
2 Meanwhile, Berman petitioned for declaratory relief in California, alleging that
MLM “was improperly seeking subrogation as a creditor against Berman’s share
of the trust assets for the costs it incurred defending Modell in the California and
Maryland litigation, thereby causing Modell to withhold the amount of the claim
from any distribution.” Berman v. Minn. Laws. Mut. Ins. Co., No. A155394, 2020
WL 593388, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).
3
(Iowa 1977); cf. Jahnke v. Deere & Co., 912 N.W.2d 136, 143–44 (Iowa 2018)
(dismissing civil rights action for lack of territorial jurisdiction). Berman did not
appeal that ruling.
Over four years later, Berman filed a motion to reopen his extortion case in
Iowa. The motion alleged that Iowa had territorial jurisdiction over MLM which
“probably confers (or substitutes for) personal jurisdiction.” MLM resisted the
motion to reopen, pointing out that Berman did not plead any new facts that would
give Iowa courts territorial jurisdiction over his civil extortion claim. The district
court denied the motion to reopen. It echoed the 2018 ruling, finding Iowa courts
had no authority to hear Berman’s extortion claim. Berman moved to reconsider
and sought to have the trial judge disqualified. The court denied both requests.
Berman now appeals. He lists five issues for review, which are hard to
follow and consist largely of attacks on MLM’s attorney and the trial judge. But his
brief contains a single two-paragraph argument section, alleging “an obvious,
concerted fraud to protect MLM.”
We review questions of territorial jurisdiction for the correction of errors at
law. State v. Rimmer, 877 N.W.2d 652, 660 (Iowa 2016). On our review, we adopt
the district court’s rationale on the issues presented. Iowa courts lack authority to
consider Berman’s extortion claim because none of the alleged conduct occurred
in this state. Berman alleged no new facts in the motion to reopen that would
change that reality. And the record shows no cause for disqualification of the
judge. A full opinion would not augment or clarify existing law. Thus, we affirm
without further opinion under Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED.