Linda Betz
v.
Rebecca Mathisen, Eric Muller, Kelly Rasmuson and Michael Wilson
Linda Betz sued Rebecca Mathisen, Eric Muller, Kelly Rasmuson, and Michael Wilson for defamation based on communications she received through discovery in a separate lawsuit. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense, declining to apply a discovery rule to defamation claims and finding that even if a discovery rule applied it would not save Betz’s claim. Betz appealed. The court of appeals considered the case en banc and held that a discovery rule should apply to certain types of defamation claims; it then remanded to the district court for further fact-finding. The defendants now seek further review.
Resister
Linda Betz
Applicant
Rebecca Mathisen, Eric Muller, Kelly Rasmuson and Michael Wilson
Attorney for the Resister
Michael J. Carroll
Attorneys for the Applicant
David Bower
Katie Graham
Dana W. Hempy
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Nov 12, 2025 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Patrick D. Smith, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ., but decided en banc. Opinion by Ahlers, J. Dissent by Greer, J. (15 pages)
Linda Betz filed suit against four employees of her previous workplace for defamation, claiming that statements made in internal documents and meetings harmed her reputation and led to her termination. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the petition was filed after the two-year statute of limitations ran. On appeal, Betz argues the district court erred in dismissing her suit. OPINION HOLDS: Because the alleged defamatory statements were made internally, Betz would have had limited opportunity to become aware of them. We conclude the discovery rule should be applied in this situation. The question of when she became aware of the statements is a question of fact that must be determined to decide the statute of limitations. We reverse the district court’s dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings as if the motion had been denied. DISSENT ASSERTS: I do not think Betz’s case was dismissed prematurely. Because she was on inquiry notice when she filed her November 2020 lawsuit, I would conclude her March 2023 defamation claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and affirm the district court.