Vogel v. E.D. Bullard Company

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered that the request for relief found in Dft's 144 Bill of Costs is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/24/2014. (SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JAMES D. VOGEL,
Plaintiff,

v.
E.D. BULLARD
COMPANY,
Defendant.
**

**

Civil Action No.
5:12-CV-00011-JMH-REW

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**

**

**

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Bill of
Costs

[DE

144].

Plaintiff

has

filed

a

Response

stating

its

opposition [DE 145], and Defendant has filed a Reply in further
support of its request for relief. Accordingly, this matter is
ripe for review. Having reviewed the record and being otherwise
sufficiently advised, Defendant’s request for relief is denied,
and the parties shall each bear their own costs.
The

Court

considers

whether

Defendant

is

a

“prevailing

party,” entitled to an award of costs. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(1) states that costs other than attorney’s fees
should

be

allowed

to

the

prevailing

party.

A

party

is

the

prevailing party where (1) it receives “at least some relief on
the

merits

of

[its]

claim”

and

(2)

there

is

a

“judicially

sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.”
1 

Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d
410, 425 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Buckhannon Board and Care Home
v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603-605
(2001)). When the results of a case are mixed, however, both
parties have “prevailed.” Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389
F.3d

568,

581

(6th

Cir.

2004)

(concluding

that

when

both

plaintiff and defendants prevailed in part, the defendants could
not be considered a “prevailing party” and each party should
bear its own costs); Lynch v. Sease, CIV.A. 6:03-479-DCR, 2007
WL 2844962, 2 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2007) (holding that each party
would bear its own costs and expenses when both prevailed on
certain claims).
Both parties in this case received at least some relief on
the merits of a claim, and, thus, both achieved a change in the
legal relationship of the parties. Six causes of action were
included in Plaintiff’s Complaint [DE 146]. Judgment was entered
in favor of Plaintiff with respect to his sixth claim, seeking a
declaratory
counterclaim

judgment
seeking

concerning
relief

a

under

signing
the

bonus,

same

Defendant’s

agreement,

and

judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s five
remaining claims.

[DE 145 and DE 146]. Thus, neither party can

be the single “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding costs,

2 

and the Court concludes that each party must bear its own costs
due to their shared “prevailing party” status.
Accordingly,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

the

request

found in Defendant’s Bill of Costs [DE 144] is DENIED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2014.

3 

for

relief