Smith v. Bradley Pizza, Inc.

Background

Scott Smith brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act against Bradley Pizza, Inc. and Pamela M. Dahl. On June 12, 2019, the court entered summary judgment for Defendants because Smith had not shown an injury sufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. The claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

After judgment was entered, Defendants sought $6,980.02 in costs, including transcript fees, docket fees, expert fees, and courier expenses. Smith objected. The Clerk initially entered a cost judgment of $2,359.20, allowing transcript and docket fees but not expert fees or courier expenses. After the parties stipulated to corrections to the transcript costs, the Clerk entered an amended cost judgment of $1,118.21. Smith then moved for review of the Clerk’s action.

Arguments and analysis

Smith argued that Defendants were not prevailing parties because his claims had been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than decided on the merits. The court rejected that argument. It explained that a defendant may be a prevailing party when a court rejects a plaintiff’s claim for a non-merits reason. A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based on the absence of an injury-in-fact was enough to give Defendants prevailing-party status because it judicially rebuffed Smith’s attempt to change the legal relationship between the parties.

Smith also argued that the amended cost judgment should be vacated because of his financial condition. The court stated that a non-prevailing party’s financial status may be considered, but avoiding costs requires evidence of dire financial circumstances and an inability to pay both currently and in the future. Smith relied on deposition testimony that he did not have a job and had not had one since 2001. The court found that this testimony did not establish his overall financial condition or justify concluding that he could not pay the judgment.

The court also rejected Smith’s reliance on the rule limiting certain attorney-fee awards against plaintiffs whose claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. It explained that the Eighth Circuit had rejected applying that rule to cost awards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which generally allows costs to a prevailing party.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff Scott Smith’s Motion for Review of Clerk’s Action. It affirmed the Clerk’s Amended Cost Judgment in the amount of $1,118.21 for Bradley Pizza, Inc. and Pamela M. Dahl.