HOFFMAN-RETTIG, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SOUTH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE, Defendant-Appellee. SOUTH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE, Counterclaim Plaintiff, vs. HOFFMAN-RETTIG, L.L.C., Counterclaim Defendant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-389 / 08-1632
Filed June 17, 2009
HOFFMAN-RETTIG, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
SOUTH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________
SOUTH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
vs.
HOFFMAN-RETTIG, L.L.C.,
Counterclaim Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Paul R. Huscher,
Judge.
Hoffman-Rettig, L.L.C. appeals the district court’s ruling on its breach of
contract claim. AFFIRMED.
Robert Malloy and Benjamin T. Cook of Malloy Law Firm, Goldfield, for
appellant.
John Werner of John Werner, P.L.C., Toledo, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Hoffman-Rettig, L.L.C. (Hoffman-Rettig) is an egg-production facility.
South Central Cooperative (South Central) provided feed for the chickens that
hatched the eggs. When one of the flocks did not produce eggs to Hoffman’s
expectations, Hoffman-Rettig sued South Central for breach of contract, breach
of implied warranty, and negligence. Hoffman-Rettig alleged that the feed failed
to conform to specifications and, as a result, the company sustained $60,000 in
damages.
Prior to trial, South Central filed a brief setting forth the elements of each
of Hoffman-Rettig’s claims, with supporting case law.1
Hoffman-Rettig
responded with its own brief conceding that South Central “accurately listed . . .
the necessary elements of proof under Iowa law for the three theories of
recovery.”
Following a bench trial, the district court found insufficient proof that the
feed “caused the damages that the plaintiff urges. Or that it caused, in fact, any
damages.” The court ruled as follows:
The court finds the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof as
to either the liability for any reduction in eggs or death of chickens.
Nor has the plaintiff proved the amount of any damages. And the
plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.
On appeal, Hoffman-Rettig does not challenge the district court’s finding of
no liability. The company instead focuses only on damages. The absence of
argument on liability is fatal. Liability was a predicate to damages and, as the
1
South Central’s brief cited the following opinions: Berryhill v. Hatt, 428 N.W.2d 647,
652 (Iowa 1988) (breach-of-contract); Van Wyk v. Norden Laboratories, Inc., 345
N.W.2d 81, 84 (Iowa 1984) (breach of implied warranty); Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d
1, 7 (Iowa 2007) (negligence).
3
district court’s “no liability” determination is unchallenged, we affirm on that basis.
See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c) (“Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite
authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”).
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
