New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. City of St. Louis
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Property Intervenors' Motion for Bill of Costs (Doc. 165 ) and Defendant City of St. Louis Motion Bill of Costs (Doc. 168 ) are DENIED.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/17/16. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NEW LIFE EVANGELISTIC CENTER, INC., )
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00395-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
New Life Evangelical Center (“NLEC”) operates a homeless shelter in downtown St.
Louis. On February 17, 2015, Defendant the City of Saint Louis, Missouri’s (“the City”) Board
of Public Service (“the Board”) issued an order revoking NLEC’s hotel permit unless NLEC
either: (1) provides proof to the Board demonstrating compliance with the thirty-two (32) bed
occupancy limit imposed on it by the hotel permit or (2) provides documentation to the Board
demonstrating that NLEC has obtained the necessary permit and/or license to operate the
Facility. NLEC brought the current suit against the City for declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
and damages pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),
42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 1.302, and
the Missouri Constitution generally contesting the validity of the Board’s decision. During the
course of the litigation, 1426 Washington Ave. LLC, and 1401 Locust Street, LLC (''the Property
Intervenors"), two neighboring property owners, were allowed to intervene (Doc. 52). Because
the Court found the RLUIPA claims (Counts I, VIII), the section 1983 claims (Counts II, Ill), and
the declaratory judgment claim (Count VII) not ripe for adjudication and declined to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law claims (Counts IV-VI), the Court dismissed this action without
On November 17, 2015, the Property Intervenors filed their Motion for Bill of Costs in
the amount of $6,321.40 (Doc. 165). That same day, the City filed its Motion for Bill of Costs in
the amount of $4,416.25 (Doc. 168). On December 1, 2015, NLEC filed its objections to the
Bills of Costs (Doc. 171). The Property Intervenors and the City filed their replies on December
8, 2015 (Docs. 173, 174). The motions are, therefore, fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Where, as here, a case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, an award of costs is governed
by 28 U.S.C. § 191912. See Otay Land Co. v. United Enterprises Ltd., 672 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2012) (applying section 1919 when an action was dismissed as unripe). Unlike an analysis
under Rule 54(d)(1), the same strong presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing
party does not apply under section 1919. Otay Land Co., 672 F.3d at 1156 (citing Miles v.
California, 320 F.3d 986, 988 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003)); Hygienics Direct Co. v. Medline Indus., Inc.,
33 F. App'x 621, 625 (3d Cir. 2002); Fay v. Fay, No. 113CV01362AWIMJS, 2015 WL 7271713,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015). Although the Eighth Circuit has not yet addressed how to
determine “just costs,” the Court finds Ninth Circuit case law persuasive. The Ninth Circuit
directs courts to “consider what is most fair and equitable under the totality of the
“Whenever any action or suit is dismissed in any district court . . . for want of jurisdiction, such
court may order the payment of just costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1919.
2 While the City mistakenly cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 in its memorandum in support of taxation
of costs (Doc. 169), the Court will not deny its Motion for Bill of Costs on that basis as the City
filed the correct form.
circumstances” with an emphasis on a “case-by-case approach.” Otay Land Co., 672 F.3d at
1157. In Otay, the Ninth Circuit sets forth the following factors for the Court’s review: (1) the
role played by exigent circumstances, specifically hardship or culpable behavior by the parties;
(2) the strength of plaintiff’s jurisdictional claim; and (3) the significance of pending parallel
litigation in state court. Id. at 1157-59. A district court has substantial discretion in awarding
costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1919. See Id. at 1156; Callicrate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 139 F.3d
1336, 1339 (10th Cir. 1998).
The Court declines, in its exercise of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, to award costs to
either defendant. There is no evidence that NLEC acted in a vexatious or frivolous manner or
otherwise exhibited culpable behavior. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, NLEC was unaware that
the City would consider several exemptions until during the pendency of the action. As a result
of these representations, NLEC filed a new application with the City. Without such assurances,
the Court very well may have determined any such application to be futile and the case ripe for
adjudication. See Hygienics Direct Co. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 33 F. App'x 621, 625-26 (3d Cir.
2002) (“In this case, the District Court determined that costs should not be awarded to the
defendants because Hygienics had ‘plausible grounds for asserting the existence of federal
jurisdiction’ and Hygienics did not act in a ‘vexatious or frivolous’ manner.”). Furthermore,
while the Court allowed the Property Intervenors to intervene as a matter of right, these
defendants willingly chose to participate in what they are now calling “an unreasonable, hasty
and ill-considered lawsuit based on an infirm claim” (Doc. 174 at 2). They stand on decidedly
less stable ground in their request than the City. Regardless, the Court finds that an award of
costs in this case would be “unjust” for the reasons previously identified and therefore
defendants shall bear their own costs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Property Intervenors’ Motion for Bill of Costs
(Doc. 165) and Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion Bill of Costs (Doc. 168) are DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2016.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?