Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00003/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00003-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DEBORAH BECK, ADMINISTRATRIX

OF THE ESTATE OF ELSIE MCDONALDHAWKINS, DECEASED PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 5:07CV00003

PHYSICIANS MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY DEFENDANT

ORDER

On August 22, 2007, the Court entered judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint. Prior to filing this case in federal court, the plaintiff pursued the same

breach of contract claims against the same defendant in the Circuit Court of Drew County. That

complaint was dismissed without prejudice upon plaintiff’s motion. 

Plaintiff has now filed for costs pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1),

41(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, costs other than attorneys' fees “shall be allowed

as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 1920. “Rule 54(d) presumes an award of costs to the prevailing party;

however, the district court has substantial discretion in awarding costs.” Marmo v. Tyson Fresh

Meats, Inc., 457 F. 3d 748, 762 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Computrol, Inc. v. Newtrend, L.P., 203

F.3d 1064, 1072 (8th Cir. 2000)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) if a plaintiff had

Case 5:07-cv-00003-JMM Document 60 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 2
2

previously dismissed the same complaint in state court that was subsequently dismissed in

federal court, the Court may assess payment of costs of that previous action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(d).

The Court does not believe an assessment of costs would be appropriate because this case

was brought in the representative capacity on the behalf of the estate of Elsie McDonaldHawkins, deceased, and that estate has no discernable assets. Further there is no evidence of

forum shopping or vexatious litigation. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs is denied (#56).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7 day of September , 2007.

 

James M. Moody

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00003-JMM Document 60 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2