Thull v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
256
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 251 granting 247 Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs. Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the February 4, 2015, Report and Recommendation 251 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Thull's motion for review of the clerk's entry of cost judgment 247 is GRANTED. 2. The cost judgment 246 is VACATED. 3. No costs will be taxed. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on March 9, 2015. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ADAM THULL,
Case No. 11‐CV‐2368 (PJS/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ONE WORLD
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and RYOBI
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Eric D. Pearson, HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON, for plaintiff.
John W. Bell, Meghan M. Sciortino, and Alexandria L. Bell, JOHNSON & BELL,
LTD.; and Stan E. Siegel and Andrew J. Sveen, NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA, for
defendants.
Plaintiff Adam Thull filed a products‐liability suit against defendants after he
was injured while using a table saw that defendants had designed and manufactured.
After a two‐week trial, a jury returned a verdict for defendants.
Defendants sought to recover nearly $90,000 in costs under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. ECF No. 243. The clerk allowed $35,052.78 and entered
a cost judgment against Thull in that amount. ECF No. 246. Thull moved for review,
see D. Minn. LR 54.3(c)(3)(A), arguing that the Court should deny costs because he is
indigent. ECF No. 247. He attached a declaration describing his financial situation.
ECF No. 248‐1 Ex. A.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that Thull’s motion for review be granted and costs not be taxed. ECF
No. 251. Judge Brisbois recognized that, while Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) presumes that a
prevailing party is entitled to costs, courts have the discretion to deny costs when the
party to be taxed is indigent. See Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, Civil No. 07‐3630 (JRT/JJK), 2011
WL 3837095, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2011). Judge Brisbois concluded on the strength of
Thull’s financial declaration that Thull “has limited employment opportunities” and
“no assets, no savings, no retirement plan,” and that his family members are “unable to
cover basic living expenses and are at risk of losing their home.” ECF No. 251 at 4.
Judge Brisbois added that Thull’s case was not frivolous, noting that the Court denied
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to a jury trial. Id. at
4‐5.
Defendants at first objected to Judge Brisbois’s R&R, ECF No. 252, but have since
withdrawn that objection, ECF No. 255.
-2-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
the Court ADOPTS the February 4, 2015, Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 251].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Thull’s motion for review of the clerk’s entry of cost judgment [ECF
No. 247] is GRANTED.
2.
The cost judgment [ECF No. 246] is VACATED.
3.
No costs will be taxed.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 9, 2015
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-3-
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?