Vogel v. E.D. Bullard Company
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,
Civil Action No.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Bill of
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.
party,” entitled to an award of costs. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(1) states that costs other than attorney’s fees
prevailing party where (1) it receives “at least some relief on
sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.”
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
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
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
judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s five
[DE 145 and DE 146]. Thus, neither party can
be the single “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding costs,
and the Court concludes that each party must bear its own costs
due to their shared “prevailing party” status.
found in Defendant’s Bill of Costs [DE 144] is DENIED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2014.
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?