Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 7, 2018

Todd Smith-Bunge, Plaintiff,
v.
Wisconsin Central, Ltd., a corporation, Defendant.

          Jeff Dingwall, Esq and Eight & Sand, counsel for plaintiff.

          Emily A. McNee, Esq and Littler Mendelson, PC, counsel for defendant.

          ORDER

          David S. Doty, Judge

         This matter is before the court upon the motion for review of taxation of costs by plaintiff Todd Smith-Bunge. Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants the motion in part.

         BACKGROUND

         On August 31, 2017, the court granted defendant Wisconsin Central, Ltd.'s motion for summary judgment on Smith-Bunge's Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) claim. On January 1, 2018, the parties agreed to dismiss the remaining Federal Employers Liability Act claim (FELA). On April 18, 2018, the clerk of court taxed $11, 265.32 in favor of Wisconsin Central. Smith-Bunge now moves for review of the cost judgment, raising several objections.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Prevailing Party

         Smith-Bunge first argues that the court should not consider Wisconsin Central the prevailing party because it only prevailed on the FRSA claim. This argument is wholly without merit.

         A party who prevails as to a substantial part of the litigation is considered the “prevailing party” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), “even if it has not succeeded on all of its claims.” SuperTurf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1287-88 (8th Cir. 1981); see also Testa v. Village of Mundelein, Ill., 89 F.3d 443, 447 (8th Cir. 1996)(“[T]he prevailing part is the party who prevails as to the substantial part of the litigation.”). Here, Wisconsin Central prevailed on the FRSA claim, and the parties agreed to dismiss the FELA claim. Accordingly, the court finds that Wisconsin Central is the prevailing party. See Walton v. Autorol Corp., No. 3:95-CV-0926-R, 1998 WL 531881, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 1998)(holding that plaintiff was prevailing party where court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and remaining claims were dismissed by stipulation).

         II. Taxable Costs

         The court has “substantial discretion” in awarding costs to a prevailing party under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 363 (8th Cir. 1997). Unless a federal statute, rules, or court order provides otherwise, “costs - other than attorney's fees - should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Smith-Bunge has the burden to show that the cost judgment “is inequitable under the circumstances.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2002)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

         A. Deposition of Todd Smith-Bunge

         Smith-Bunge objects to the taxation of costs incurred by defendants in deposing him. He argues, without citation to legal authority, that Wisconsin Central failed to apportion the costs of the deposition between testimony that was relevant to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.