Rule 1.281.Expedited civil actions
Division II: Actions, Joinder of Actions and Parties · Last amended January 1, 2019 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1.281
Comment
Rule 1.281(1)(a). The rule provides that absent stipulation, a single party in an expedited civil action cannot recover more than $ 75,000 or be liable for more than $ 75,000. A single party could obtain a damage verdict in excess of $ 75,000, so long as the final judgment in the proceeding in favor of that party (after apportionment of fault and offsets for any settlements and exclusive of prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and costs) does not exceed $ 75,000.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(1)(c). Rule 1.1901 provides the Expedited Civil Action Certificate for eligible plaintiffs to complete.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(1)(g). If the judgment in an expedited civil action is reversed and remanded on appeal, the case remains subject to rule 1.281 on remand, unless the trial court, upon motion, terminates the expedited civil action pursuant to this provision.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(3)(b)(1)(4). If a case requires expert testimony, failure to timely designate an expert or to make a timely expert disclosure could be a permissible ground for summary judgment under this rule.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(4)(b). The parties may stipulate to a reasonable time beyond the one-year time limit in order to accommodate scheduling conflicts. The court, however, may set the expedited civil action for trial within the one-year period absent party consent.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(4)(e). The rule is intended to conserve judicial time and resources by giving the court discretion to dispense with findings of fact and conclusions of law and instead render a verdict as if the court were sitting as a “jury of one.” The use of jury instructions and a verdict form in lieu of findings of fact and conclusions of law permits appellate review of the court’s ruling. The cross-reference to rule 1.281(4)(c) clarifies that the parties must submit jointly one proposed set of jury instructions and a verdict form to the court trying the case without a jury. And, as also required by rule 1.281(4)(c), the parties must timely note objections to the final form of jury instructions and verdict form used by the court. Rule 1.904(2), governing motions to enlarge or amend findings and conclusions, does not apply in expedited nonjury trials in which the court dispenses with findings and conclusions.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(4)(g)(2). The rule streamlines the presentation of records at trial, such as medical and business records, by allowing admission without a sponsoring witness to establish authenticity and the elements of a hearsay exception. This rule authorizes the court to review and admit the record on its face subject to other objections, such as relevance, upon a determination that the record appears to be genuine and appears not to be hearsay or to fall within one of several enumerated hearsay exceptions, such as statements for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, records of regularly conducted activity, or public records and reports (rules 5.803(4), 5.803(6), and 5.803(8)). If the record appears genuine and appears to qualify for one of the enumerated hearsay exceptions, the burden shifts to the other side to raise a substantial question as to its authenticity or trustworthiness. Rule
1.281(4)(g)(2) may only be used if the proponent of the record has given notice to other parties sufficiently in advance of trial of its intent to rely on this rule, while serving a copy of the record. See rule 1.281(4)(g)(2)(1).
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(4)(g)(3)(1). The rule permits a party to admit the out-of-court declaration of a health care provider in lieu of the health care provider’s in-court testimony. It prohibits hearsay objections based solely on the fact that the health care provider has not testified at trial or in a deposition subject to cross-examination.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Rule 1.281(4)(g)(3)(3). Any party may object to all or part of the Health Care Provider Statement in Lieu of Testimony, including the proponent of the statement. The rule provides that the court must rule on any objection to the health care provider statement sufficiently in advance of trial so as to give the proponent an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in the statement. In ruling on such objections, the court has discretion to determine matters such as whether the health care provider has provided actual medical treatment for the patient, whether the health care provider has substantially answered the questions on the statement, or whether to redact any portion of the statement.
[Court Order August 28, 2014, effective January 1, 2015]
Plain-English Summary
Rule 1.281 gives Iowa litigants a faster, less costly alternative to full-scale civil litigation when the case does not call for every procedural tool available. It applies to actions seeking only a money judgment where all the damages any one party could recover or owe -- including penalties, prefiling interest, and attorney fees, but not prejudgment interest accruing after filing, postjudgment interest, or costs -- total $75,000 or less. Small claims and domestic relations cases are excluded outright. Eligible plaintiffs elect the expedited track by certifying, on a supreme court-approved form signed by every plaintiff and their attorneys, that the case fits within that $75,000 ceiling, and they must file that certification before the discovery-conference deadline under rule 1.507(1). Parties in a case that would not otherwise qualify can still ask the court, by joint motion, to proceed on the expedited track -- though unless they agree otherwise, that stipulated route does not carry the $75,000 cap with it.
The discovery phase is deliberately narrow. Absent an agreement or a court order granted on a showing of good cause, discovery must close 60 days before trial, and each side is capped at ten interrogatories, ten document requests, ten requests for admission (not counting requests to admit the genuineness of trial exhibits), one deposition of each party, depositions of no more than two nonparty witnesses, and one retained expert. A party who needs more has to file a written motion showing good cause for the additional discovery. On the motions side, summary judgment is available only on a handful of grounds: collecting on an open account or other liquidated debt, establishing an obligation to indemnify, asserting an immunity defense, a party's failure to meet a disclosure deadline such as one under Iowa Code section 668.11, failing to provide notice or exhaust remedies required by law, or raising any other matter that amounts to an avoidance or affirmative defense. Each party gets only one such motion, though it can combine more than one of these grounds, and it must be filed at least 90 days before trial.
Trial itself moves on a compressed schedule. The court sets a firm trial date, and absent good cause the case must go to trial within a year of the petition's filing. A jury, if demanded, is drawn from a panel of twelve, with each side striking three to leave a six-person jury; if that jury deliberates at least three hours without reaching a unanimous verdict, a five-juror majority can render one. The trial itself is meant to wrap up within two business days, with each side generally limited to six hours total for jury selection, openings, evidence, and closings. The rule also streamlines what evidence needs a live witness to come in: a document can be admitted without a sponsoring custodian if the offering party gave 90 days' notice, the document looks genuine and falls within one of several listed hearsay exceptions, and no substantial question about its authenticity has been raised; a treating health care provider's written statement can substitute for live testimony if served at least 150 days before trial, with the opposing side free to cross-examine that provider by deposition at its own expense.
Two final protections round out the rule. The court cannot force parties into a settlement conference or other alternative dispute resolution unless they agreed to it or a contract or statute requires it. And because the expedited track sacrifices some procedural depth in exchange for speed, a judgment or order from an expedited civil action cannot be used to establish claim or issue preclusion against anyone who was not a party to, or in privity with a party to, that expedited case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of cases qualify for Iowa's expedited civil action track?
Under rule 1.281(1)(a), an action qualifies if the only relief sought is a money judgment and all claims by or against any one party -- including penalties, prefiling interest, and attorney fees, but excluding postfiling prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and costs -- total $75,000 or less. Small claims and domestic relations cases are excluded under rule 1.281(1)(b).
By when do I have to elect to proceed as an expedited civil action?
Rule 1.281(1)(c) requires eligible plaintiffs to file the supreme court-approved certification before the discovery conference deadline set under rule 1.507(1).
How limited is discovery in an expedited civil action?
Absent agreement or a court order for good cause, rule 1.281(2) caps each side at ten interrogatories, ten document requests, and ten requests for admission per other side, one deposition of each party, up to two nonparty depositions, and one retained expert, with discovery closing 60 days before trial.
How is the jury different in an expedited civil trial?
Rule 1.281(4)(d) seats six jurors chosen from a panel of twelve, with each side striking three. If the jury deliberates at least three hours without reaching a unanimous verdict, a five-juror majority can render one.
Can a judgment from an expedited civil action be used against me in a later, unrelated case?
Not unless you were a party to, or in privity with a party to, the expedited action. Rule 1.281(6) bars using an expedited civil action's judgment or order to establish claim or issue preclusion against anyone else.