Shelton et al v. MRIGlobal et al
Filing
70
ORDER. Defendants' 66 Motion to Amend or Alter the Final Judgment and to Extend Deadline for Filing Bill of Costs and Motion for Recovery of Full Costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) is granted. The Clerk of the Co urt shall amend the 64 Final Judgment to reflect that defendants may have their costs upon filing a bill of costs. Within 14 days of this Order, defendants may file a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court and a motion for recovery of full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/8/13.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02891-PAB-MJW
DAVID M. SHELTON and
DESIGNSENSE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MRIGLOBAL, a non-profit corporation, formerly Midwest Research Institute
its National Renewable Energy Laboratory Division, and
ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Amend Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) [Docket No. 66].
In the Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 25], plaintiffs brought federal
and state law claims against defendants. On September 28, 2012, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs’ federal claims on the merits, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 63 at 6. In addition, the Court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and
dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. Id. at 7-8. That same day, the Clerk
of the Court entered Final Judgment [Docket No. 64] in favor of defendants. The final
judgment, however, does not address the issue of costs.
In the present motion, defendants request that the Court amend the final
judgment to reflect that they are entitled to costs as the prevailing parties pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Defendants also request leave to file a motion for recovery of full
costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
In order to succeed on a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must show either “(1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, [or] (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In this case, the final judgment
entered on September 28, 2012 and defendants filed their motion to alter or amend the
judgment on October 12, 2012. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is timely.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) because
they were the prevailing parties. Docket No. 66 at 3-4. Moreover, defendants claim
that, because the denial of costs constitutes a penalty, the Court must either amend the
final judgment to allow defendants to recover their costs or provide a valid reason for
denying costs. Id. at 4. By contrast, plaintiffs argue that defendants should bear their
own costs in this case. Docket No. 67 at 1. Plaintiffs contend that, because the Court
did not reach the merits of the state law claims, defendants did not prevail on all the
claims brought in this case. Id. at 1-2.
For purposes of Rule 54(d), a prevailing party is a party in whose favor final
judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded. See Barber v.
T.D. Williamson, Inc., 254 F.3d 1223, 1234 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Archer v. Farmer
Bros. Co., 90 P.3d 228, 230 (Colo. 2004) (noting that, under Colorado law, “[a]
2
prevailing party is one who prevails on a significant issue in the litigation and derives
some of the benefits sought by the litigation”). Additionally, a litigant who is the
prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees is also the prevailing party for purposes
of costs. Barber, 254 F.3d at 1234; see also Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
(1983) (noting that under fee-shifting statutes, a plaintiff who “succeed[ed] on any
significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in
bringing suit” is a “prevailing party”). Moreover, the Supreme Court has instructed that
a prevailing party analysis is not based on whether the party won a complete and total
victory, but rather whether the party “succeeded on any significant claim affording it
some of the relief sought” and there has been a “material alteration of the legal
relationship of the parties.” See Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch.
Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-93 (1989).
As noted above, on September 28, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ federal
claims on the merits for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
Docket No. 63 at 7-8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This dismissal qualifies as a material
alteration of the relationship between the parties because plaintiffs’ claims are now
subject to res judicata. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (“[u]nder res
judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies
from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action”). In addition,
defendants qualify as the prevailing parties because final judgment entered in their
favor. Barber, 254 F.3d at 1234. Moreover, defendants succeeded on two significant
issues in the litigation and received all the relief they sought in their motion to dismiss.
3
Garland, 489 U.S. at 791-93. In light of these facts, the Court finds that defendants are
the prevailing parties for purposes of Rule 54(d).
Under Rule 54(d), “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order
provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the
prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Tenth Circuit has held that “[w]hether or
not a prevailing party shall be awarded costs is ‘within the court’s sound discretion.’”
Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted). However, Rule 54(d) creates a presumption that the court will award costs to
the prevailing party. Marx v. Gen. Rev. Corp., 668 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the burden is on the non-prevailing party to overcome the presumption that
costs will be awarded to the prevailing party, and “[w]hen a district court exercises its
discretion and denies costs to a prevailing party, it must provide a valid reason for the
denial.” Rodriguez, 360 F.3d at 1190.
Generally, a prevailing party may move for costs at any time after the Court
enters judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see Hiller v. United States, 2008 WL
4534052, at *4 n.4 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) (noting that Rule 54(d)(1) does not set a
time limit to present a bill of costs to the Clerk of the Court); 10A Charles Wright, Arthur
Miller & Mary Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2679 (3d ed. 2010) (noting that the “text of
Rule 54(d)(1) does not indicate when the motion for taxation of costs must be made”).
Local Rule 54.1, however, provides that “[e]ach judgment or final order shall indicate
which party or parties are entitled to costs. A bill of costs must be filed on the form
provided by the court within 14 days after entry of the judgment or final order.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. In this case, because the final judgment does not reference the
4
award of costs and defendants filed their motion to amend the judgment within fourteen
days of the entry of final judgment, the Court finds that defendants’ motion is timely and
complies with the Local Rules. See Brooks v. Gaenzle, No. 06-cv-01436-CMA-MJW,
2009 WL 4949922, at *5 (D. Colo. Dec. 15, 2009) (allowing defendant to seek costs
because the final order did not reference the award of costs). Moreover, plaintiffs
provide no valid reason to deny defendants their costs. See, e.g., Cantrell v. Int’l Bhd.
of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458-59 (10th Cir. 1995) (Courts consider the following
factors to determine whether to deny costs: (1) whether the prevailing party was
obstructive and acted in bad faith during the course of litigation, (2) whether only
nominal damages are awarded, (3) whether the issues were close and difficult, (4)
whether the costs are unreasonably high or unnecessary, or (5) whether the
non-prevailing party is indigent). Thus, because the denial of costs is “in the nature of a
severe penalty,” Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497, 1507 (10th Cir. 1995), to prevent
manifest injustice, the Court will grant defendants’ motion and amend the final judgment
to indicate that defendants are awarded their costs as the prevailing parties. Servants
of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Defendants also request leave to file a motion for full costs and attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Docket No. 66 at 3-4. Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, a party in
“copyright actions may be awarded attorney’s fees simply by virtue of prevailing in the
action: no other precondition need be met, although the fee awarded must be
reasonable.” Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 886 F.2d 1545, 1556
(9th Cir. 1989). Under § 505, the question of whether fees should be awarded to the
5
prevailing party is left to the court’s discretion. See Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S.
517, 524 n. 11 (1994) (“[D]istrict courts are to use their discretion in awarding attorney’s
fees and costs to the prevailing party”). Moreover, any motion for attorneys’ fees must
be made within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). In this
case, plaintiff’s motion was filed within fourteen days of the entry of judgment and,
therefore, is timely. See Mattel, Inc. v. Radio City Entm’t, 210 F.R.D. 504, 505
(S.D.N.Y. 2002). Because defendants are the prevailing parties and defendants’
motion is timely, the Court will grant defendants’ request for leave to file a motion for full
costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Amend or Alter the Final Judgment and to
Extend Deadline for Filing Bill of Costs and Motion for Recovery of Full Costs pursuant
to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) [Docket No. 66] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the Final Judgment [Docket
No. 64] to reflect that defendants may have their costs upon filing a bill of costs. It is
further
ORDERED that, within 14 days of this Order, defendants may file a bill of costs
with the Clerk of the Court and a motion for recovery of full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
§ 505.
6
DATED July 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?