Thompson v. Kanabec County et al
Filing
222
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Plaintiff Wendy Thompson's Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs (Doc. No. 210 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendant Mille Lacs County's Cost Judgment (Doc. No. 208 ) is OVERRULED . Mille Lacs County is not entitled to costs. The clerk shall amend the cost judgment accordingly. Defendant Kanabec County's Cost Judgment (Doc. No. 207 ) is AFFIRMED in the full amount of $2,877.80.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/2/2019. (las)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Wendy Thompson,
Civil No. 17-1926 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
Kanabec County and Milles Lacs
County,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Adrianna Shannon, Esq., and Bonnie Smith, Esq., Shannon Law, LLC, counsel for
Plaintiff.
Cally R. Kjellberg-Nelson, Esq., and Dyan J. Ebert, Esq., Quinlivan & Hughes, PA;
counsel for Defendant Kanabec County.
H. Morrison Kershner, Esq., Kendra Elizabeth Olson, Esq., and Kristi A. Hastings, Esq.,
Pemberton, Sorlie, Rufer & Kershner, counsel for Defendant Mille Lacs County.
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Wendy Thompson’s (“Thompson”)
Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs. (Doc. No. 210.)
BACKGROUND
This Court granted summary judgment on Thompson’s federal claim in favor of
Defendant Kanabec County (“Kanabec”) and dismissed it with prejudice. (Doc.
No. 195.) Absent a federal claim, the Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Thompson’s state claims against Defendants Kanabec and Mille Lacs
County (“Mille Lacs”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and dismissed them without
prejudice. (Id.)
Thereafter, Kanabec and Mille Lacs each filed a Bill of Costs. (Doc Nos. 197,
198.) Thompson objected to Kanabec’s Bill of Costs (Doc. Nos. 198, 199), but did not
object to Mille Lacs’ Bill of Costs. 1 The clerk entered judgment in favor of Kanabec in
the amount of $2,877.80 (Doc. No. 207) and Mille Lacs in the amount of $3,130.70 (Doc.
No. 208). 2 Thompson filed a motion for review of the clerk’s cost judgment with respect
to both Kanabec and Mille Lacs. (Doc. No. 210.)
Thompson argues that the cost judgments are premature because Kanabec and
Mille Lacs are not prevailing parties. (Doc. No. 212. at 1.) She argues further that even
if Defendants are prevailing parties, the cost judgments are unjust because of the financial
disparities between she and the Defendants. (Id. at 2.) Kanabec and Mille Lacs each
filed a response in opposition to Thompson’s motion for review. (Doc. Nos. 217, 218.)
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), the Court has “substantial
discretion” in awarding costs to a prevailing party. Zotos v. Lindbergh, 121 F.3d 356,
363 (8th Cir. 1997). Unless a federal statute, rule, or court provides otherwise, “costs—
1
Thompson references both Kanabec and Mille Lacs in the title of her objections;
however, she refers only to Kanabec in her argument. (Doc. Nos. 198, 199.)
2
The clerk found that the full amounts claimed by both Kanabec ($2,877.80) and
Mille Lacs ($3,130.70) were taxable. (Doc. Nos. 207, 208.)
2
other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1).
To overcome the presumption of taxation, Thompson has the burden to show that
the cost judgment “is inequitable under the circumstances.” Concord Board Corp. v.
Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
II.
Objections
A.
Defendants are not prevailing parties.
Thompson first contends that the cost judgments are premature because
Defendants are not prevailing parties.
1.
Kanabec
Thompson argues that Kanabec is not entitled to reimbursements of costs as a
prevailing party because it did not receive actual relief on the merits. (Doc. No. 212
(“Thompson Memo.”) at 4.) She contends that while the Court dismissed with prejudice
her Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim, the Court left “the core issue of her
separation from employment” undecided by declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over her state claims. (Id. at 5.) Thompson argues that because she may yet
receive the full relief she seeks in state court with respect to the “central issue” of her
case, Kanabec has not prevailed on the merits of the case. (Id.)
The Supreme Court observed that the term “prevailing party” is a “legal term of
art” defined as “‘a party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount
of damages award.’” Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and
3
Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary 1145 (7th ed. 1999)). The Court dismissed Kanabec’s only federal claim on
the merits with prejudice. Whether or not Thompson decides to pursue her remaining
claims in state court does not alter the fact that this Court entered final judgment in favor
of Kanabec on her federal claim. The Court concludes that the cost judgment is not
premature because Kanabec is the prevailing party. See, e.g., Allen v. Lang, 738 Fed.
App’x 934, 945 (10th Cir. 2018) (finding that a district court does not abuse its discretion
by awarding Rule 54(d)(1) costs when entering judgment in favor of a defendant on some
claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law
claims against that defendant); Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 355 (11th Cir. 1995)
(per curium) (concluding that defendants who were granted summary judgment on
federal claims were prevailing parties entitled to Rule 54(d)(1) costs despite “[t]hat the
district court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
and dismissed all of plaintiff’s remaining state law claims”).
2.
Mille Lacs
Similarly, Thompson argues that Mille Lacs is not a prevailing party because she
may still recover full relief against Mille Lacs. (Id.) Mille Lacs argues that it is the
prevailing party because it obtained some relief when the Court dismissed Thompson’s
claims without prejudice. Mille Lacs contends that “[a] party who has obtained some
relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all
claims.” Head, 62 F. 3d at 355. In Head, though, the court decided at least one claim in
favor or defendants on the merits. Here, the Court did not decide anything on the merits
4
with respect to Mille Lacs. Unlike Kanabec, the Court dismissed without prejudice all of
Thompson’s claims against Mille Lacs.
Mille Lacs argues that dismissal without prejudice does not always preclude
determination of a prevailing party. See, e.g., M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic
Air, Inc., Civ. No. 2017 WL 8947185, at *8 (D. Minn. Feb. 3, 2017) (finding that the
combination of dismissal without prejudice and covenant not to sue made defendants
prevailing party entitled to costs); Anderson v. Christian Hosp. Ne.-Nw., 100 F.R.D. 497,
498 (E.D. Mos. 1984) (finding that defendants were prevailing party for the purposes of
costs after dismissing case without prejudice for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with
pre-trial orders). In M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd., the parties entered into a covenant not
to sue with respect to the dismissed claims. 2017 WL 8947185 at 8. Here, Thompson
may still assert her claims in state court. Anderson is also distinguishable because the
case was dismissed after plaintiffs failed to comply with pre-trial orders. Here, dismissal
was not a result of Thompson’s action or inaction. While the Court agrees that dismissal
without prejudice does not always preclude determination of a prevailing party, that is not
the case here.
Finally, Mille Lacs argues that it is entitled to costs because it has “been
compelled to appear, invest significant time and resources, and fully participate, without
any success afforded to the Plaintiff and her claims.” The Court finds that these reasons
do not satisfy the requirements of a prevailing party—namely, “a party in whose favor a
judgment is rendered.” Buckhannon Brd. & Care Home, 532 U.S. at 603.
5
By declining to exercise jurisdiction over any of Thompson’s claims related to
Mille Lacs, the Court declined to enter judgment in favor of either party. Therefore,
neither party has prevailed at this time, and Mille Lacs is not entitled to costs.
B. `
The cost judgments are unjust.
Thompson next contends that even if Kanabec or Mille Lacs are prevailing parties,
the Court should reverse the cost judgments because they are unjust, given the financial
disparities between she and Defendants.
It is Thompson’s burden to show that the cost judgments are “inequitable under
the circumstances.” Concord Board Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d at 498 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Thompson contends that the costs pose a hardship
because she is a single mother, her 2018 income decreased to $35,977.59, and she
incurred penalties resulting from her early retirement. (Doc. No. 213 ¶¶ 3-6.)
While the Court recognizes Thompson’s changed circumstances, the Court finds
that she has failed to show that the cost judgments are inequitable under the
circumstances. Although Defendants may have greater resources, their resources derive
from tax payer dollars. Further, Thompson has not submitted documentation that her
annual income of nearly $36,000 is insufficient to meet her needs. While her income
may be less that what she is accustomed to, the Court cannot conclude from the record
before it that the cost judgments are inequitable under the circumstances.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Kanabec is a prevailing party because the Court entered
judgment in its favor on the merits. Relatedly, the Court finds that Mille Lacs is not a
6
prevailing party because the Court did not enter judgment in its favor. Finally, the Court
finds Thompson’s additional arguments against the imposition of costs lack merit.
Accordingly, the Court affirms Kanabec’s Cost Judgment in the full amount of $2,877.80
and overrules Mille Lacs’ Cost Judgment in the full amount of $3,130.70.
ORDER
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons set forth
above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff Wendy Thompson’s Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs
(Doc. No. [210]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.
Defendant Mille Lacs County’s Cost Judgment (Doc.
No. [208]) is OVERRULED. Mille Lacs County is not entitled to costs.
The clerk shall amend the cost judgment accordingly.
b.
Defendant Kanabec County’s Cost Judgment (Doc.
No. [207]) is AFFIRMED in the full amount of $2,877.80.
Dated: May 2, 2019
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
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?