Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Postma v. York
(2025)
Case details
Full caption
Sioux County Scott POSTMA v. Kevin YORK
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Iowa (IA)
Court
Iowa Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Postma
v.
York,
2025
WL
4383972
(2025)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
1
2025
WL
4383972
(Iowa
Dist.)
(Trial
Order)
District
Court
of
Iowa.
Sioux
County
Scott
POSTMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kevin
YORK;
Mike
Kats;
Harold
Vander
Vliet,
individually
and
as
trustee
of
the
Harold
Leroy
Vander
Vliet
Revocable
Living
Trust;
Diane
Wedebrand,
individually
and
as
guardian
and
conservator
to
Mike
Kats;
Arvin
Brenneman;
Ozone
Solution,
Inc.;
Ozone
LLC;
OS
Holdings
LLC;
Ozone
Solutions
Rental
LLC;
O3
Tech
LLC;
Preservation
Tech
LLC;
and
K&H
Holdings,
LLC,
Defendants.
No.
LACV030754.
January
2,
2025.
Editor's
Note:
This
document
contains
discussion
of
unverified
citations,
likely
generated
by
AI
tools
used
by
a
party
or
counsel.
These
citations
are
not
attributable
to
the
Court.
The
unverified
citations
have
been
preserved
as
part
of
the
official
record,
but
links
are
unavailable.
Order
Granting
Motion
to
Strike
Sarah
Crane
,
Judge.
*1
Plaintiff
Scott
Postma
(Postma)
filed
a
Motion
to
Strike,
asking
the
Court
to
strike
a
series
of
filings
made
by
Pro
Se
Defendant
Kevin
York
(York).
York
was
previously
represented
by
Counsel,
who
were
allowed
to
withdraw
on
11/22/2024.
Since
the
withdrawal
of
counsel,
York
has
filed
twenty-four
(24)
motions
or
pleadings
1
.
The
Court
does
not
include
truly
responsive
filings
such
as
resistances
or
objections
in
this
count.
The
filing
blitz
began
on
12/04/2024,
when
York
filed
15
motions
or
pleadings
in
less
than
48
hours.
The
24
filings
are
as
follows:
Docket
#
Name
of
Motion
or
Pleading
Date
and
Time
Filed
Relief
Sought
D0141
Answer
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Counterclaims
asserted
against
Plaintiff
as
well
as
non-party
attorneys
D0140
Counterclaim
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Counterclaims
asserted
against
the
opposing
counsel
D0142
Counterclaim
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Counterclaim
asserted
against
Plaintiff
D0147
Motion
to
Compel
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Motion
to
Compel
asserting
that
Plaintiff's
discovery
responses
are
incomplete.
Does
not
contain
a
Rule
1.517(5)
certification.
Postma
v.
York,
2025
WL
4383972
(2025)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
2
D0144
Motion
to
Produce
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Asks
the
Court
to
order
production
of
documents.
D0143
Motion
to
Gain
Access
to
Documents
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Ask
the
Court
to
disqualify
opposing
counsel.
D0146
Motion
for
Sanctions
&
Injunctive
Relief
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Asks
for
monetary
sanctions,
to
prohibit
opposing
counsel
from
filing
anything,
and
to
require
posting
of
a
$50
million
bond.
D0139
Motion
for
Sanctions
for
Perjury
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Asks
the
Court
to
strike
pleadings,
impose
sanctions,
grant
an
adverse
inference
jury
instruction,
exclude
evidence,
and
refer
counsel
to
a
disciplinary
board
based
on
claim
that
Plaintiff
falsely
claims
to
act
in
the
best
interests
of
Ozone
Solutions
through
a
derivative
suit.
D0145
Motion
for
Extension
of
Time
to
Procure
Counsel
12/4/2024,
8:43
AM
Sought
a
60-day
extension
of
time
to
locate
counsel
for
the
LLC
Defendants.
The
Court
granted
a
30-day
extension
on
12/6/2024.
D0151
Answer
12/4/2024,
9:57
PM
“Counterclaim”
asserted
against
Plaintiff
and
opposing
counsel.
D0150
Motion
to
Dismiss
12/5/2024,
11:24
PM
Moves
to
Dismiss
Plaintiff's
claims
(which
York
already
filed
an
Answer
to
on
12/27/2024)
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
including
Plaintiff's
prior
refusal
to
accept
a
settlement
offer.
D0149
Motion
for
2
nd
Set
of
Sanctions
12/5/2024,
12:07
AM
Seeks
sanctions
based
on
allegation
that
Plaintiff
has
pursued
frivolous
and
harassing
litigation.
D0154
Motion
to
Strike
12//6/2024,
12:22
AM
Asks
the
Court
to
Strike
harassing
filings,
grant
expedited
discovery,
set
a
hearing
on
opposing
counsel's
alleged
misconduct,
and
award
costs
and
fees.
D0155
Motion
to
Clarify
12/6/2024,
12:22
AM
Asks
for
clarification
of
regarding
emails
to
the
Court
(which
was
previously
set
forth
in
the
Court's
3/8/2024
Order);
Asks
that
the
Clerk's
office
be
directed
to
provide
greater
information
to
York.
Postma
v.
York,
2025
WL
4383972
(2025)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
3
*2
D0153
Motion
12/6/2024,
1:30
AM
Counterclaims
against
Plaintiff
Postma
D0159
Motion
to
Strike
12/11/2024,
12:00
PM
Moves
to
strike
Plaintiff's
derivative
claim
D0160
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment
12/11/2024,
12:00
PM
Asks
for
entry
of
judgment
and
order
allowing
use
of
AI.
D0158
Motion
to
Dismiss
12/11/2024,
12:00
PM
Moves
to
dismiss
derivative
claim
for
lack
of
standing
D0163
Counterclaim
12/15/2024,
5:29
PM
Counterclaims
asserted
against
opposing
counsel
D0162
Motion
to
Strike
12/15/2024,
11:24
PM
Motion
to
Strike
Plaintiff's
Petition
(which
was
already
answered
by
York
on
2/27/2024)
D0167
Counterclaim
12/22/2024,
1:23
PM
Amended
Counterclaims
against
Plaintiff
and
Plaintiff's
Counsel
D0170
Motion
to
Disqualify
12/22/2024,
1:23
PM
Motion
to
Disqualify
opposing
counsel
D0171
Motion
to
Compel
12/23/2024,
9:53
AM
Motion
for
more
specific
statement
D0173
Moton
for
Clarification
12/30/2024,
Seeks
Court
advice
regarding
rules
of
procedure
Following
review
of
these
motions
the
Court
concludes
that
they
are
being
filed
for
abusive
purposes
or,
at
a
minimum,
to
abusive
effect.
The
motions
are
repetitive,
fail
to
follow
basic
rules
of
civil
procedure
and
pleading,
and
rely
on
the
use
of
generative
AI.
•
Repetitive
:
The
motions
and
pleadings
are
highly
repetitive.
Seven
filings
attempt
to
assert
counterclaims
against
Plaintiff
and/or
current
or
former
opposing
counsel.
Five
filings
ask
the
Court
to
strike
or
reject
the
Plaintiff's
claims
or
petition,
which
Defendant
York
already
Answered
on
2/27/2024
(D0053).
Two
filings
ask
the
Court
to
disqualify
opposing
counsel.
Two
filings
ask
the
Court
for
advice
regarding
procedural
civil
practice.
Five
filings
ask
the
Court
for
generic
relief
such
as
sanctions,
dismissal,
posting
of
a
bond,
or
prohibitions
on
future
filings
based
on
claims
of
frivolous
or
harassing
litigation.
Three
filings
ask
the
Court
to
order
discovery
or
production
of
documents.
•
Failure
to
Follow
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure:
The
York
filings
detailed
above
fundamentally
fail
to
comply
with
the
rules
of
civil
procedure.
Discovery
motions
fail
to
contain
the
Rule
1.517(5)
good
faith
certification.
Pleadings
have
been
filed
outside
the
applicable
timeframes
and
without
leave
of
Court
(see
e.g.
Rules
1.246,
1.402(4),
1.414).
“Counterclaims”
are
asserted
against
non-parties.
Motions
to
Dismiss
or
Strike
a
pleading
have
been
filed
after
that
pleading
was
already
answered
(see
Rule
1.441(1)).
•
Improper
Use
of
Generative
AI:
The
most
concerning
flaw
in
York's
filings
is
the
improper
use
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(AI).
York
admits
to
the
use
of
generative
AI
to
prepare
his
filings
(see
D0160
at
page
2,
D0264
at
2,
D0169
at
8).
This
use
of
generative
AI
has
resulted
in
production
of
an
extremely
high
volume
of
filings,
leading
to
an
abusive
effect.
In
addition,
and
as
detailed
in
the
Plaintiff's
Motion
to
Strike,
this
use
of
AI
has
resulted
in
“hallucinations”
throughout
Postma
v.
York,
2025
WL
4383972
(2025)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
4
York's
filings,
which
are
inaccurate
statements
of
law
made
to
the
Court.
Plaintiff's
motion
detailed
numerous
generative
AI
“hallucinations”
throughout
York's
filings.
The
Court
highlights
a
few
here:
*3
○
The
Motion
to
Compel,
D0143,
cites
to
Midwest
Recovery
Servs.
v.
Cooperatives
Ins.
Co.,
785
N.W.2d
169
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
2010).
The
Court
has
been
unable
to
locate
this
case.
The
citation
is
to
a
North
Dakota
Supreme
Court
case:
Burris
Carpet
Plus,
Inc.
v.
Burris
,
785
N.W.2d
164
(N.D.
2010)
.
The
closest
case
identified
by
the
Plaintiff
and
by
the
Court
is
Midwest
Recovery
Servs.
v.
Cooper
,
465
N.W.2d
855
(Iowa
1991)
.
This
case
relates
to
whether
the
time
for
appeal
was
tolled
following
a
motion
to
amend
findings
of
fact
and
not
discovery
responses
which
it
was
cited
for.
While
scrivner's
errors
can
be
tolerated,
here,
it
appears
a
legal
citation
was
simply
manufactured.
○
The
Motion
to
Gain
Access
to
Documents
and
Records,
which
is
actually
a
motion
seeking
to
disqualify
counsel,
cites
Hickman
v.
Sacred
Heart
Corp.,
653
N.W.2d
522,
532
(Iowa
2002).
The
Court
has
been
unable
to
locate
this
case.
The
citation
is
to
State
v.
Watson
,
653
N.W.2d
520
(Wisconsin
Ct.
App.
2002)
.
The
Court
has
not
been
able
to
locate
any
Iowa
case
with
the
caption
cited
by
York.
However,
the
Court's
research
reveals
that
the
AI
may
have
relied
on
State
v.
Watson
,
620
N.W.2d
233
(Iowa
2000)
to
create
this
hallucination.
The
Iowa
Supreme
Court's
State
v.
Watson
,
(as
opposed
to
the
citation
for
a
Wisconsin
case
called
State
v.
Watson
)
related
to
criminal
defense
counsel
with
an
actual
conflict
of
interest
due
to
representation
of
the
defendant
and
a
key
prosecution
witness.
○
The
Motion
to
Dismiss,
D0150,
cites
to
Kellogg
v.
Iowa
State
Bank
of
Wapello
,
189
N.W.2d
354,
361
(Iowa
1971).
This
citation
is
actually
for
Rogers
Plaza,
Inc.
v.
S.S.
Kresge
Co.
,
189
N.W.2d
346
(Mich.
Ct.
App.
1971)
which
relates
to
the
lease
of
a
shopping
mall
and
does
not
appear
relevant
to
any
issues
raised
in
this
filing.
○
Plaintiff's
motion
identifies
10
additional
hallucinations
that
either
don't
exist
or
don't
contain
the
citation
attributed
to
that
case
or
rule.
York's
use
of
generative
AI
has
changed
the
nature
of
litigation.
Not
only
would
the
opposing
party
be
required
to
address
the
arguments
made
in
each
of
his
filings,
but
they
would
first
have
to
comb
through
every
legal
citation
to
address
whether
the
legal
premise
upon
which
York's
arguments
are
based
are
even
accurate.
When
this
use
of
AI
is
combined
with
the
repetitive
nature
of
the
motions
as
well
as
the
fundamental
failure
to
follow
the
rules
of
civil
procedure,
the
Court
has
no
difficulty
concluding
that
requiring
the
Plaintiff
to
expend
time
and
legal
fees
to
respond
to
these
motions
would
be
an
abusive
and
inappropriate
use
of
the
litigation
system.
Notably,
on
12/6/2024,
D0156,
the
Court
entered
an
order
that
included
the
following
warning:
“The
use
of
generative
AI
to
create
hallucinations
of
legal
authority
without
actual
factual
support
will
not
be
tolerated
and
may
lead
to
sanctions.”
Despite
this
warning,
on
12/15/2024,
York
filed
a
Resistance
(D0164)
that
once
again
cited
to
a
case
that
does
not
exist:
Niemann
v.
Breen
,
641
N.W.2d
146,
150
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
2002).
The
citation
is
for
a
case
in
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court:
Davidson
v.
Horton
Industries,
Inc.
,
641
N.W.2d
138
(South
Dakota
2002)
.
The
term
Pro
Se
(or
self-represented)
does
not
even
appear
in
the
case,
although
York
cites
it
to
assert
that
pro
se
litigants
should
be
provided
leniency.
When
the
absurdity
of
relying
on
a
fake
case
to
resist
striking
motions
that
cite
fake
cases
was
pointed
out
in
Plaintiff's
Reply
Brief,
York
filed
a
second
Resistance
(D0169)
that
appears
to
cite
to
actual
cases.
*4
Certainly,
Courts
in
Iowa
prioritize
procedural
fairness
and
do
not
promote
form
over
substance.
See
e.g.
Puente
v.
Civil
Service
Commission
of
Iowa
City
,
7
N.W.3d
15
(Iowa
2024)
(finding
notice
of
judicial
review
substantially
complied
as
notice
of
appeal
and
noting
the
court
does
not
“exalt
form
over
substance.”).
However,
the
effort
to
ensure
procedural
fairness
does
not
provide
license
for
a
pro
se
litigant
to
engage
in
abusive
litigation
tactics
or
to
present
false
legal
authority
to
the
Court.
York
is
required
to
follow
the
Iowa
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
“The
law
does
not
judge
by
two
standards,
one
for
lawyers
and
another
for
lay
persons.
Rather,
all
are
expected
to
act
with
equal
competence.
If
lay
persons
choose
to
proceed
pro
se,
they
do
so
at
their
own
risk.”
Kubik
v.
Burk
,
540
N.W.
2d
60,
62
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
1995)
;
s
ee
also
Henandez
v.
Kuhre-Holmquist
,
13
Postma
v.
York,
2025
WL
4383972
(2025)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
5
N.W.2d
285,
2024
WL
4222887
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
2024)
(table).
Further,
there
is
a
difference
between
the
liberal
construction
of
a
filing
as
opposed
to
allowing
the
wholesale
violation
of
the
standards
by
which
litigation
is
conducted.
York
is
encouraged
to
obtain
legal
counsel.
However,
should
he
choose
to
continue
to
represent
himself,
he
shall
refrain
from
duplicative
filings,
shall
not
present
false
legal
authority
to
the
Court,
and
shall
follow
the
rules
of
civil
procedure.
IT
IS
HEREBY
ORDERED
that
Docket
filings
D0141,
D0140,
D0142,
D0147,
D0144,
D0143,
D0146,
D0139,
D0151,
D0150,
D0149,
D0154,
D0153,
D0159,
D0160,
D0158,
D0163,
D0162,
D0167,
D0170,
and
D0171
are
stricken
as
a
sanction
for
abusive
litigation
practices,
failure
to
comply
with
the
rules
of
civil
procedure,
and
citation
to
false
legal
authority.
No
Party
is
required
to
respond
or
resist
these
filings.
With
regard
to
D0145,
D0155,
and
D0173,
the
Court
finds
the
filings
should
not
be
stricken
as
they
require
response
from
the
Court
as
opposed
to
any
other
Party.
The
Court
has
already
granted
in
part
the
relief
requested
in
D0145.
With
regard
to
D0155,
the
Court
directed
York
to
the
Court's
prior
order
regarding
courtesy
copies
by
email.
With
regard
to
York's
complaints
about
the
Clerk
of
Court
in
D0155,
the
Court
takes
no
action.
The
Clerk's
office
does
not
provide
legal
advice
and
if
York
desires
legal
advice
he
will
need
to
contact
an
attorney.
Finally,
with
regard
to
D0173,
a
Motion
for
Clarification,
the
Court
takes
no
action.
The
Court
does
not
provide
legal
advice
or
advisory
opinions.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED
that
if
Defendant
York
desires
to
continue
to
represent
himself,
he
shall
read
the
Iowa
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
and
file
a
certification
that
he
has
read
such
rules
within
thirty
(30)
days
of
this
Order.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED
that
all
Parties
are
prohibited
from
relying
on
generative
AI
to
draft
their
pleadings
and
filings.
This
order
does
not
prohibit
the
use
of
search
engines
such
as
Westlaw,
LexisNexis,
FindLaw,
or
Internet
search
engines
such
as
Google
or
Bing
to
locate
legal
research.
This
order
also
does
not
prohibit
the
use
of
AI
to
generate
a
summary
of
research
as
a
starting
point
(see
e.g.
Google's
AI
Overview
or
Westlaw's
AI-Assisted
Research).
However,
the
Parties
and
attorneys
must
engage
in
the
actual
drafting
of
their
filings,
even
if
there
is
some
use
of
AI
to
locate
relevant
legal
arguments.
From
this
point
forward,
the
Parties/Attorneys
must
include
a
certification
in
each
filing
that
the
filing
was
drafted
by
a
human
and
that
any
citations
to
legal
authority
have
been
reviewed
and
cite
checked
for
accuracy
by
a
human.
Any
further
citation
to
false
legal
authority
(excluding
scrivner's
errors)
may
result
in
sanctions,
including
potential
monetary
sanctions
or
striking
of
additional
filings.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
So
Ordered
<<signature>>
Sarah
Crane,
District
Court
Judge
Fifth
Judicial
District
of
Iowa
Footnotes
1
While
the
Court
was
writing
this
order,
York
filed
a
Motion
to
Allow
Representation
of
LLCs
by
Defendant
Pro
Se
(D0176).
The
Court
does
not
address
that
motion
in
this
Order.
End
of
Document
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access