Thompson v. Kanabec County

Background

Wendy Thompson moved for review of cost judgments entered for Kanabec County and Mille Lacs County after an earlier ruling in the case. The court had granted Kanabec County summary judgment on Thompson’s federal Family and Medical Leave Act claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed Thompson’s state claims against both counties without prejudice.

The clerk entered a cost judgment of $2,877.80 for Kanabec County and $3,130.70 for Mille Lacs County. Thompson argued that the awards were premature because neither county was a prevailing party. She also argued that the awards were unjust because of the financial disparity between her and the counties.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, costs other than attorney’s fees generally should be awarded to a prevailing party, subject to the court’s discretion. A prevailing party is one in whose favor a judgment is entered. A party opposing costs must show that the award is inequitable under the circumstances.

The court concluded that Kanabec County was a prevailing party because the court had entered judgment in its favor on the merits of Thompson’s federal claim. The fact that Thompson might pursue her remaining state claims in state court did not change that conclusion.

The court reached a different conclusion for Mille Lacs County. It had dismissed all claims against Mille Lacs County without prejudice and had not decided any of those claims on the merits. Because Thompson could still assert the claims in state court, and because the court had not entered judgment in favor of either Thompson or Mille Lacs County, Mille Lacs County was not a prevailing party and was not entitled to costs.

The court also rejected Thompson’s fairness argument. Although the court recognized Thompson’s changed financial circumstances, including her reported 2018 income of $35,977.59 and penalties related to early retirement, it found that she had not shown that the cost judgments were inequitable. The court also noted that the counties’ resources came from taxpayer dollars and that Thompson had not provided documentation showing that her income was insufficient to meet her needs.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted in part and denied in part Thompson’s Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs. The court overruled Mille Lacs County’s cost judgment and held that Mille Lacs County was not entitled to costs; the clerk was ordered to amend that judgment. The court affirmed Kanabec County’s cost judgment in the full amount of $2,877.80.