## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07
- 4088 R ONA LD D . S M ART, doi ng busi ness as P ASCHALL E LEC TRIC, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L OCAL 70 2 I NT ERNAT I ONALB R OT H E R H OO D OF E LE CT R I CALW O RKERS, C HRI S TOPHER N . G RANT AND S CHU CHA T, C OO K& W ER NER, D efend a nts-A pp ellees
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 C94

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge
. M OT I ON T O C OMPEL P AYMENTS O F C OSTS

J ULY 22, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . Thi s m at te r i s be f o r e us o n th e plainti f f’ s m o ti on to co m pelthe pa y m en ts o fc o st s. F o r the r ea so ns s etf o r thi n thi s o pi ni o n, w e g r an t th e m o ti o n. The2 N o. 07
- 4088 d efe n d an ts are ord er ed to p ay t h e c os ts p re vio u sly o r der ed bythi s co ur t f o r th wi th
.
A. Ro na l d S m ar t i s th e pr o pr i et o r o fa no n- uni o n c o m pan y th atc o nt r ac te d t o pe r f o r m c er ta i n e l ec trical wor ki n the const r uc t i o n o fa s po r t s c o mpl e x. Mr
. S mar ta l l e g e d tha t, subsequentl y, the Inter nati onalBro ther hood o fEl ectr i cal W or ker s, Local70 2, co er ced the ow n er o fthe spor ts com ple x to term i nate the c ontr act by thre ate ni ng to w i thhol d ser vi ces i fthe own erdi d no t e m plo y uni on workers i ns te ad o fM r . S m ar t. M r . S m ar t al l eg ed th athe w as fi re d and that the ow ner hi re d a co m pany affi l i ate d w ith th e u n ion in h is s te ad . H e b ro u gh t a n ac tio nin th e d i s t ric t c ou rtfor a lleg ed vio lat ion s o f th e Illino is A nti tr ust Act, 74 0 IL C S 10/3. I n the sam e a cti on, he a l so br o ug hta c l ai m a g ai ns t th e uni o n, i ts l aw firm a nd o ne o fthe fi r m ’ s at to r ne y s f or un war r an te d pr o se cut i o n. Finally, he b r o u g ht anot he r clai m against th e law firm and the at torney forl ega l m al pract ice
. The defendants m o ve d t o d ism is s th e co m pl ai nta s pr ee m pte d b y the N ati onalLaborRel ati ons A ct, as bar re d by j ud i ci al est oppel, and as f ai l i ng to st ate a cl ai m up on w h ich r el i ef ca n b e g r an te d. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the mot i o n, hol ding that the a nti tr ust cl ai m was pree m pted, and that, w i thr e g a r d t o the t wo s t a t e - l a w c l a i ms, Mr
. S mar thad ple aded him sel fo ut o fco urt. T he di str i ct c ourtthen aw ar d ed th e d efe n d an ts $7 62 .62 in c os t s in c u rre d in the di str i ct c ourt . On appeal, w e hel d that M r. Sm ar t’ s state an titr ust cl ai m was com ple tel y pr eem pted, but, bec ause the f actsN o. 07
- 4088 3

a l l e g e d i n h i s c o mpl a i nti nc l ud e d a n a l l e g a t i o n o fs e c o nd

a r y b o y c o t ta c t i v i t y f o r wh i c h r e l i e fi s a v a i l a b l e under 29 U
. S. C. § 1 87 , t hat cl ai m was re m anded f orev al uati on und er the appropri ate federa l st andard. W e a ffi rm ed t he di s mi s s a l o f t he s t a t e - l a w c l a i ms. Ou r o pi ni o n provi de d t hat M r. S m ar t m ay re cove r hi s co sts i n thi s co urt, and, i n due cour se, w e perm i tte d M r. Sm ar t’ s bi l l ofco sts , w hi ch he i ni ti al l y had fi l ed , er ro neously, i n the dist ri ct cou rt, to be fi led insta nt er. M r. Sm ar t w as aw ar d ed $7 41 .43 in c os ts in c u rre d in thi s a pp eal
. W h en h e a tte m pted to col l ect thos e co sts , h ow ev er , cou n se l for th e d efe n d an ts info rm ed h im th at, b ec au se the di st r i ctc o ur t ha d a war ded th e defen dan ts $ 76 2. 62 i n c o st s i nc ur r ed th er e, he o wed the di f f e r e n c e o f $ 2 1
. 1 9
. Mr
. S ma r t mo v e d t o c o mpel t he paym ent o fco sts , and w e cal l ed f ora re sponse f ro m th e d efe n d an ts , w h ich h as n ow be en filed
.
B. A l though they di d not fi l e a p et iti on f orr ehear i ng to m ak e thi s a rg um ent, the defe nd ants now co ntend that M r. Sm ar t “is n ot a s u c c es sfu l a p p ella n t.” R es p . a t 5 ¶ 5 . In th eir view , becau se th e j ud gm en t of th e d istrict cou rt was a ff irm ed in al l r es pec ts a s to the l aw fi r m a nd the att or ney, tho se tw o defe n d an ts w er e pr evai l i ng par ti es. The de f en dan ts a l so co nt en d th at th e uni o n i s a pr ev ai l i ng p ar ty be c au se M r. Sm ar t a lso m ad e a n u n su c c es sfu l cla im aga i nst i t f orunw ar ra n te d pro secuti on. I t i s t oo l ate to m ake thes e a rg um ents now . I n any eve nt, w e bel i eve th at ou r ori ginal aw ard of costs w as a p erm issible exerci se o fo ur di sc r et i o n.4 N o. 07
- 4088 Th e de f e nd a nt s fur the r s ub mi t tha t the y ha ve not r efus ed to pa y the p lai nt i ff’ s co st s i n a cc o r dan ce wi ththe bi l l o fco sts is su ed by thi s co urt. They c l ai m thatthey sim p ly asked M r. Sm art to fi rst p a y the costs to th e clerk o f th e di st r i ct co ur t ta xe d i n th e defen dan ts ’ f avor in the case bel ow . T h e m att ero fco sts i n thi s co urt i s a fre esta nd i ng o bl i gat i on. I t m ust be p aid n ow . The m att ero f costs i n th e d istri ct cou rt i s not a m atter p rop erly before th i s co u rtn ow . W e p oin t o u t, h ow ev er , th at Fe d er al R u le ofCi vi l Pro c ed u re 54 ( d) pr ovi des thatco sts m ay be a w a r d ed to a “p re va ilin g” p ar ty . See Fed
. R. Civ. P. 54(d). A p ar ty preva i l s f orpurposes o fRule 54 ( d) when a fi nal j u d gm en t a w ar d s itsu b st an tia l relie f. See Sl anev. M ar i ah B oats, Inc. , 1 6 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 6 8 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( a p p l y i ng “s u b st an tia l relie f” s ta n d ar d ); Z es sar v. Kei th , 53 6 F
. 3d 78 8, 7 96 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) (d i sc us sing, i n a n a na l o g o us c o ntex t of an aw ard of fees un d er § 1988, the ne ed f or a j ud gm ent t o be “ fi nal ” i n or der t o be c onsi dered a “prevai l i ng par ty” )
. A fi nal j ud gm ent is on e that r eso l ves a ll cla im s a ga in st all p ar tie s. D ale v. Lapp in , 3 7 6 F
. 3d 652, 654 (7th Cir. 2004). W e r emande d o ne o f th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t the de fenda nt uni o n t o the di st r i ctco ur t f o r fur th erpr o ce edi ng s. I n l i g ht o fthi s ac ti o n, the di st r i ctc ou rt no w m us t r ev i si t th e m at te r of c os ts a n d e n te r a n ew d et er m in at ion
. Se eFu r m an v. C irrito , 78 2 F
. 2d 35 3, 3 55 (2d Ci r . 1 98 6) ( “When a d ist ric t cou rt j u d gm en t is re ve rs ed or su b st an tia l l y m od ifi e d o n ap p ea l, an y c os ts aw ar d ed to th e p re vio u sly p re va ilin g p ar ty are au to m a t i c ally va c at ed .”); In re Sm it h , 876 F. 2d 524, 52 7 ( 6th Ci r. 19 89) ( sta ti ng tha t “ w hen a jud gm en t is rev er se d on ap p ea l, an y t ax at io n o fc o s ts isN o. 07
- 4088 5 al so autom ati cal l y v acat ed” and ci ti ng Fur m an ); cf
. St at eof Idaho P otato Co m m ’n v. G & T Ter m inal Pack aging, In c. , 4 2 5 F
. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 2 3 ( 9t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( o b s e r v i n gth a t“ we cannot tel l the extent to w hi ch our reve rs alo fthe [ one] cl ai m m i ght a f f ect the di str i ct c ourt ’ s pre vai l i ng par ty ca l cul us ” and th eref o r e va ca tinga n a war d o fc o st s)
. The dist ri ct c ourthas the a u thor i ty to entera parti alfi nal j ud gm ent i fthe c ou rt deter m i nes that there i s no j ust re as on for d ela y, see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 5 4(b ), or i t m ay defe r acti on unti l i t a dj u d ica tes the re m ai ni ng cl ai m o f M r. Sm ar t aga i nst the unio n. The defe nd ants m ay yet p r e v a i l o n a l l o fth e i r c l a i ms

— and m ay be a w ar ded c os ts , i n c lu d in g t h os e in th e b ill of co st s s u b m itt ed in Decem ber20 07

— o nc e a n e w fi na l j ud g men ti s e nt e r e d. Forthe prese nt, however, t h ere i s no o perat i ve bi l l o f cos ts i n the dist ri ct c ou rtwh i ch co uld be se t o ffag ai nst th os e a w ar d ed to M r. Sm ar t in th is a p p ea l. A ccor dingl y, the defe nd ants shallpay forthw it h the cos ts ass ess ed on a pp ealto M r. S m ar t. I T I SS O O RDER ED .

7- 22- 09