Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ROBERT FORD SR. and

ANNA FORD PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-2086

TRADITIONAL SPORTING GOODS, INC.

d/b/a/ TRADITIONS DEFENDANT

ORDER

On June 29, 2007, an order was entered dismissing

Plaintiffs’ Complaint based upon the jury verdict and directing

the parties to bear their respective costs and attorney’s fees.

Now before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Amend the

Judgment and Brief in Support (Docs. 134-35) and Plaintiffs’

Response (Doc. 136).

Defendant moves the Court to amend the judgment and award

Defendant $61,327.84 in taxable costs as the prevailing party

pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and $6,356.50 in costs incurred after an offer of

judgment was made pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs object to any award of costs in

favor of Defendant. The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised in the premises, finds Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 134)

should be and hereby is DENIED.

Rule 54(d)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that:

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 137 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

...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)(1). A district court has substantial

discretion in awarding costs to a prevailing party. See Greaser

v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 979 (8 Cir. 1998). th

The Eighth Circuit takes a broad view of Rule 54(d) finding that

its grant of discretion alone permits a court to deny costs

without finding that a prevailing party was guilty of some

misconduct or other action worthy of penalty. Id. See also,

Fields v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1702512 (E.D. Ark.

June 11, 2007). Additionally, the court may consider

Plaintiffs’ limited financial resources. See Cross v. General

Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152 (8 Cir. 1983). th

It is clear from the testimony and evidence set forth in

the pleadings, as well as during the trial, that it would be

difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs to reimburse

Defendant for any of the costs it seeks. Mr. Ford testified

that he was unable to obtain work because of a disability.

Accordingly, there is no dispute that there is a wide disparity

of economic resources between the parties in this case. In

situations “where the antagonists are very unevenly matched in

size, resources, and stability, it would be unfortunate to use

the possible taxation of costs as a sword of Damocles...” See

Pittari v. American Eagle Airlines, 2007 WL 1757094 (W.D. Ark.

June 19, 2007) citing Boas Box Co. v. Proper Folding Box Corp.,

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 137 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

55 F.R.D. 79 (E.D.N.Y. 1971). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion

is DENIED as to its request for costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1).

Rule 68 provides, in pertinent part, that:

[i]f the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is

not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must

pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. However, the United States Supreme Court

has held that this rule does not apply when the judgment

obtained was in favor of the defendant as in this case. Delta

Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (1981). Therefore,

Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the $6,356.50 in costs

incurred after making the offer of judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 day of July 2007. th

/s/Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 137 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>