UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CONTINENTAL VINEYARD LLC and

INDECK-PASO ROBLES LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RANDY DZIERZAWSKI and VINIFERA WINE 

CO., LLC,

Defendants.

No. 12 C 3375

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A jury found for Defendants on all but an unfair competition claim against 

defendant Randy Dzierzawski, a former officer of both plaintiff entities. Plaintiffs 

sought more than $3.5 million in damages. The jury awarded $0, but the Court 

ordered Dzierzawski to disgorge $285,731 to Plaintiffs. See R. 293 (Cont’l Vineyard 

LLC v. Dzierzawski, 2019 WL 2076248, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2019)). The judgment 

was affirmed on appeal. See Cont’l Vineyard, LLC v. Vinifera Wine Co., LLC, 973 F.3d 

747 (7th Cir. 2020).

The Court ordered any party seeking costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(d)(1) to first file a brief arguing that they are a prevailing party. 

Plaintiffs filed such a brief. See R. 296.

Under Rule 54(d)(1), costs “should be allowed to the prevailing party.” In cases 

where a party prevails on some claims but not others, costs are appropriate for a party 

Case: 1:12-cv-03375 Document #: 328 Filed: 12/08/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:14629
2

“who prevails as to the substantial part of the litigation.” Testa v. Village of 

Mundelein, 89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 1996); First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold 

Commodities, Inc., 766 F.2d 1007, 1015 (7th Cir. 1985); The Medicines Co. v. Mylan 

Inc., 2017 WL 4882379, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2017). A district court enjoys “wide 

discretion in determining and awarding reasonable costs.” Testa, 89 F.3d at 447.

Whether a party prevailed as to a “substantial part” of the case is necessarily 

relative to the case as a whole. The absolute or relative amount of monetary relief 

awarded (i.e., relative to the amount of damages originally sought) is one indication 

of whether a party prevailed as to a substantial part of the case, but it is not the only 

factor. The number of claims prevailed upon, and their significance to the case, are 

also relevant to this analysis.

Plaintiffs cite a number of cases finding judgments of smaller absolute and 

relative values to demonstrate a substantial victory. But while these cases establish 

that the Court is within its discretion to find that Plaintiffs won a substantial part of 

this case, they do not demonstrate why the Court should make that finding. In other 

words, Plaintiffs do not make any argument as to why the monetary award they 

received is indicative of a substantial victory in the context of this case. Such analysis 

is particularly necessary here because Plaintiffs won only one claim against one 

defendant when they asserted eight claims total.1 See Springer v. Ethicon, Inc., 2018 

1 The jury was asked to decide the following four claims against each defendant: (1) 

breach of fiduciary duty for failure to act in good faith; (2) breach of fiduciary duty for 

self-dealing; (3) unfair competition; and (4) unjust enrichment. See R. 272 (verdict 

form).

Case: 1:12-cv-03375 Document #: 328 Filed: 12/08/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:14630
3

WL 1453553, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2018) (citing cases denying costs when the 

plaintiff won only some claims against some defendants).

The primary claims here were for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair 

competition. Plaintiffs alleged that Dzierzawski breached his fiduciary duty to 

Plaintiffs because he formed a separate company to take advantage of certain 

business opportunities that he should have directed to Plaintiffs as their officer. 

Specifically, Dzierzawski satisfied a deal he made with Meijer Stores to sell it certain 

varietals of wine by purchasing the wine from Plaintiffs and then reselling it under 

his own brand name. Plaintiffs alleged both that they lost sales specifically because 

Dzierzawaski sold their wine under his label and generally because he focused his 

energy on his own company to Plaintiffs’ detriment. Plaintiffs sought more than $2.1

million in lost profits, $191,000 in costs due to Dzierzawski using Plaintiffs’ assets for 

his own benefit, and $408,000 in compensation paid to Dzierzawski during the 

relevant time period. The jury awarded nothing.

Lost profits are also an available form of damages for an unfair competition 

claim. To succeed on an unfair competition claim, a plaintiff must prove brand 

confusion. Unlike the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the jury found for Plaintiffs on 

unfair competition, presumably because Defendants were reselling Plaintiffs’ wine 

under Defendants’ brand without Plaintiffs’ express permission. But the $0 in 

damages indicates that the jury found that any brand confusion was not the source 

of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Rather, the jury apparently understood the alleged 

Case: 1:12-cv-03375 Document #: 328 Filed: 12/08/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:14631
4

damages to be tied to Dzierzawski’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty, which the jury 

rejected.

On post-trial review, the Court ordered disgorgement for unfair competition, 

an equitable claim that is the purview of a court not a jury. See R. 214 (the Court’s 

order addressing this issue). Plaintiffs sought $814,000. But the Court limited

disgorgement to net profits from Defendants’ sales of wine varietals that Plaintiffs 

also sold, which amounted to $285,731.

In sum, as Plaintiffs themselves argued at trial, “the heart” of Plaintiffs’ case 

was the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. See R. 264 at 50 (closing argument 

transcript). The jury agreed, such that when they rejected the breach of fiduciary 

duty claim, they also found $0 damages, despite a finding of brand confusion. The 

Court also agrees that this case was primarily about Dzierzawski’s work for his own 

company and whether it detracted from his obligations to Plaintiffs and cost Plaintiffs 

profits. The unfair competition claim, premised on brand confusion, was a secondary 

theory of the case and aspect of Plaintiffs’ damages. Having been awarded nothing 

based on their primary theory, the Court finds that Plaintiffs did not win a 

substantial part of the case.

Case: 1:12-cv-03375 Document #: 328 Filed: 12/08/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:14632
5

Conclusion

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties and they 

cannot seek costs under Rule 54(d). 

ENTERED:

______________________________

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

United States District Judge

Dated: December 8, 2020

Case: 1:12-cv-03375 Document #: 328 Filed: 12/08/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:14633