Hoekman et al v. Education Minnesota et al

Filing 200

ORDER denying 195 Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 6/25/2021. (avt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and
Paul Hanson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated,

Case No. 18-cv-01686 (SRN/ECW)

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin
Education Minnesota, National Education
Association, American Federation of
Teachers, and Shakopee Education
Association,
Defendants.
Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,

Case No. 18-cv-02384 (SRN/ECW)

Plaintiff,
v.
AFSCME Council No. 5,
Defendants.
Douglas P. Seaton and James V.F. Dickey, Upper Midwest Law Center, 8421 Wayzata
Boulevard, Suite 105, Golden Valley, MN 55426; Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Mitchell
Law PLLC, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78701; and Talcott Franklin,
Talcott Franklin PC, 1920 McKinney Avenue, Seventh Floor, Dallas, TX 75201, for
Plaintiffs.
Amanda C. Lynch, Danielle Leonard, Patrick C. Pitts, and Scott A. Kronland, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108; and Cedrick Frazier,
David Aron, and Margaret A. Luger-Nikolai, Education Minnesota, 41 Sherburne
Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103, for the Education Minnesota Defendants.

1

April Pullium, Georgina Yeomans, Jacob Karabell, John M. West, Leon Dayan, and
Ramya Ravindran, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, 805 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1000,
Washington, D.C. 20005; and Josie Doris Hegarty, AFSCME Council 5, 300 Hardman
Avenue South, South Saint Paul, MN 55075, for the AFSCME Defendants.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Review of Taxation of
Costs filed in two related cases [18-cv-01686 (hereafter, “the Hoekman matter”), Doc.
No. 195; 18-cv-02384 (hereafter, “the Piekarski matter”), Doc. No. 132]. Based on a
review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons below, the
Court DENIES the motions.
I.

ANALYSIS
In these cases, Plaintiffs sought the return of fees paid to their unions before and

after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps.,
Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). On February 12, 2021, this Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that Defendants were entitled to a good-faith
defense to Plaintiffs’ Janus claims. (Order Denying Mot. for Summ. J. [18-cv-01686, Doc.
No. 173; 18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 117].) The Court entered judgment, and Defendants filed
a Bill of Costs seeking $4,827.82 in the Hoekman matter and $2,813.22 in the Piekarski
matter for transcription and witness fees. (Bill of Costs [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 179; 18cv-02384, Doc. No. 126].)
Plaintiffs objected, arguing that Plaintiffs had sought to resolve the core legal
question in this case—the availability of a good-faith defense to Plaintiffs’ Janus claims—
on a motion to dismiss, but Defendants insisted on conducting discovery and raising that
2

legal question at summary judgment instead. (Obj. to Bill of Costs [18-cv-01686, Doc. No.
188; 18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 129].) In the Hoekman matter, Plaintiffs additionally allege
that Ms. Hoekman’s deposition was longer than necessary, and rife with “hostility and
bullying” by Defendants’ counsel in retaliation for a letter sent by Hoekman to union
members. (Obj. to Bill of Costs [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 188], at ¶¶ 4-7.) Defendants assert
that they were entitled to seek resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims on a full record, and deny
that their litigation strategy was adopted in bad faith. (Response to Obj. to Bill of Costs
[18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 191; 18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 130].) On May 21, 2021, the Clerk of
Court taxed costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $4,827.82 in the Hoekman matter and
$1,689.21 in the Piekarski matter. (Cost Judgment [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 193; 18-cv02384, Doc. No. 131].) Plaintiffs move for review of the Cost Judgment on the same
grounds raised in their Objection to the Bill of Costs.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that, “[u]nless a federal statute,
these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs . . . should be allowed to the
prevailing party.” Under Rule 54(d), “[a] prevailing party is presumptively entitled to
recover all of its costs.” In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir. 2005)
(citations omitted). The Court has “substantial discretion in awarding costs to a prevailing
party.” Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 363 (8th Cir. 1997) (quotation
omitted).
Plaintiffs do not offer any case law supporting the proposition that a district court
should deny transcription and witness costs incurred by a prevailing defendant merely
because the defendant put the plaintiff to its proof through a motion for summary judgment.
3

Although Rule 12 empowers a defendant to seek dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims prior to
discovery, a defendant is not required to exercise that option. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)
(“[A] party may assert the following defenses by motion . . . .” (emphasis added)). The
Court declines to penalize Defendants for the strategic choice to seek resolution of
Plaintiffs’ claims on a full record, rather than on a motion to dismiss—a decision the rules
fully entitled the Defendants to make. 1
Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that Defendants have acted in bad faith. It is
true that Defendants’ counsel have resolved similar cases through Rule 12 motions, rather
than at summary judgment. But Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants’ strategy in this case
was guided by a desire to punish Ms. Hoekman for distributing a letter to union members
is simply implausible. Defendants seek less than five thousand dollars in transcription costs
in the Hoekman matter—they have undoubtedly incurred far greater expenses in attorneys
fees and other costs by proceeding to the summary judgment stage, which they do not seek
to tax.

The Court notes that, to the extent Plaintiffs assert that this case raised a purely
legal question rendering discovery unnecessary, Plaintiffs ostensibly could have sought
resolution of Defendants’ asserted good-faith defense through their own motion under
Rules 12(c) and 12(f), even though Defendants refused to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See,
e.g., Aaron v. Martin, No. 4:11CV1661 FRB, 2013 WL 466242, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7,
2013) (noting that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide two ways for a party to
challenge the sufficiency of an affirmative defense: a motion for judgment on the pleadings
under Rule 12(c), or a motion to strike under Rule 12(f),” and striking one of the
counterclaim defendant’s affirmative defenses). It does not appear that Plaintiffs attempted
to exercise this procedural vehicle. The Court cannot fault Defendants for declining to seek
resolution of this case on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when Plaintiffs could have sought a
determination on the availability of the good-faith defense by their own motion.
1

4

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not overcome the presumption that a prevailing
party be awarded its costs. Because Plaintiffs do not object to the amount of costs taxed by
the Clerk of Court, the Court affirms the Cost Judgments entered on May 21, 2021.
II.

CONCLUSION
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Review of Taxation of Costs [18-cv01686, Doc. No. 195; 18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 132] are DENIED, and the Cost Judgments
[18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 193; 18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 131] entered in these matters are
AFFIRMED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: June 25, 2021

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

5