FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14534 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 96 -011 03 -C V -S -N H E N R Y L E E “L E R O Y ” P I C K E T T , M I K E C A L L I C R A T E , P A T G O G G I N S , J O H N N Y S M I T H , W .J . R O T H W E L L R A N C H C O M P A N Y , C H R I S T O P H E R J . A B B O T T , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , S A M B R I T T , e t a l., P la in tif f s , v ersu s I O W A B E E F P R O C E S S O R S , D e f e n d a n t, T Y S O N F R E S H M E A T S , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Judg e for the Central District of * Illinois , sitti ngby

designation. 2

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 19, 2005) B ef ore C A RN E S and C O X , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s the c om pa ni on appe a l t o P i c ke ttv. T y s on F r e s h M e a t s , I nc . , 04- 12137, i n w hi c h w e a f

f i rm e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w f or T ys on F re sh M ea t s, Inc. i n H enryL ee P i ckett ’ s c l as s a ct i on l aw sui tbrou gh tun der the P a c ke r s a nd S t oc ky a r d A c tof 1921. In thi s opi ni on , w e a dd re ss P i ckett ’ s app ea l fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order a s s e s s i ng c os t s a ga i ns thi m . A f t e rthe di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d T y s on’ s m ot i on f or j u d g me n ta s ama tt e ro f l a w , Ty s o n f

i l e d i t s b i l l o f

c o s t s p u r s u a n tt o Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . P ic k e tt lo d g e d b o th g e n e r a l o b je c tio n s to a n y c o s ts b e in g a w a r d e d to T ys on , and speci fi c obj ec t i on s t o i nd i vi du al i t em s thatT ys on cl ai m ed as rei m b u rsab l e ex p en ses. T h e d i stri ctco u rto v erru l ed th e g en eral o b j ect i o n s, sust ai ned som e of P i ckett ’ s s peci fi c i t em obj ec t i on s, ov errul ed others , and o rder ed P i c ke ttt o pa y $70, 198. 60 w orth of c os t s t o T y s on.3

P ic k e tt is n o t p u r s u in g o n ap p e a l a n y o f th e s p e c if

ic o b je c tio n s h e h a d to in d iv id u a l ite m s in T y s o n ’s b ill o f c o s ts . I n s te a d , h e a r g u e s th a t T y s o n , d e s p ite secu ri n g j u d g m en tas a m att er o f l aw i n i t s fav o r, i s n o ta “ p rev ai l i n g p arty” ent i t l ed t o cost s und erR ul e 54(d)(1), and that , even i f i ti s, the di stri ctcourtabused i t s d i scret i o n i n n o trej ect i n g T yso n ’ s req u estfo r co st s.

“ ‘ W e r e vi e w the f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs unde r l y i ng adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on re gardi ng prevai l i ng party s t atus for c l ear e rr or. W hether the fa ct s a s f ou nd suff

i ce t o render the pl ai nt i ff

a ‘ prevai l i ng party’ i s al egal qu es t i on re vi ew ed de no vo . ’ ” L i ps c he rv. L R P P ubl ’ ns , I nc . , 266 F . 3d 1305, 1321 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng F i r e m a n’ s F und I ns . C o. v. T r opi c a l S hi ppi ng & C ons tr . C o. , 254 F . 3d 987, 1012 (11th C i r. 20 01 )) . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on abou tw hether t o aw ar d c os t s t o the pr e va i l i ng pa rty f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. C hapm a n v. A I T r a ns p. , 229 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir .2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . R u le 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) p r o v id e s th a t “[ e ]x c e p t w h e n e x p r e s s p r o v is io n th e r e f o ris
m ade e i ther i n a st atut e of the U ni t ed S t at es or i n these rul es , cost s other than att orneys ’ fe es shal l be al l ow ed as of course t o the prevai l i ng party unl es s the court otherw i se di re ct s . . . . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 54 (d)( 1). T he part i es agre e that , other than R u le 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) , n o o th e rs ta tu te o rru le s ap p ly to th e c o s ts in th is c a s e . W h e r e th e ir p o s itio n s d iv e r g e is o n th e q u e s tio n o f w h o is th e “p r e v a ilin g p a r ty .”4

A d e f e n d a n t is ap r e v a ilin g p a r ty if th e p la in tif

f a c h ie v e s n o n e o f

th e b e n e f

its s o u g h t in b r in g in g its la w s u it. “I f th e c a s e is litig a te d to ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its in fa vo r of the defendant , the defendanti s the prevai l i ng party. ” 10 M oo re ’ s F eder al P r a c t i c e § 54. 171[ 3] [ c ] [ i v] , a t54- 285 ( c i t i ng C hr i s t i a ns bur g G a rm e ntC o. v. E E O C , 43 4 U . S . 41 2, 41 9– 20 , 98 S . C t . 69 4, 69 9– 70 0 (19 78 )) . P i c ke tts oughtda m a ge s f r om a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a ga i ns tT y s on f

or p r a c tic e s h e c la im e d w e r e in v io la tio n o f th e P a c k e r s a n d S to c k y a r d A c t. H e d id notobt a i n a ny of

the r e l i e f

he s ought . W hi l e the j ury ’ s a ns w e r s t o the i nt e rr oga t ory que s t i ons on the s pe c i a l ve r di c tf orm w e r e i n P i c ke tt ’ s f

a vor , the d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e n te rju d g m e n t o n th a t v e r d ic t, a n d w e h a v e a f f irm e d its de c i s i on nott o do s o. B e c aus e P i c ke ttl os te ve ry a s pe c tof the c a s e a nd T y s on prevai l ed on i t , T ys on i s the “ prevai l i ng party” for purpo se s of R ul e 54(d)(1). P i ckettcont ends thateven so, the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on un der R ul e 54( d) ( 1) by f

a i l i ng t o r e

j e c tT y s on’ s r e que s tf

orc os t s . H e r e l i e s pr i m a r i l y on W hi t e & W hi t e, Inc. v. A m . H osp. S up pl y C orp. , 78 6 F . 2d 72 8, 73 1– 32 (6th C i r. 1986) , a r gui ng tha tw he r e the c a s e i s a“ c l os e a nd di f f i c ul t ” one , the non- pr e va i l i ng party l i t i gat ed the ca se i n g oo d fai th, and i thas s i gn i fi cant l y l es s f i nanci al re source s then the prevai l i ng party, a di stri ctcourtshou l d n otaw ar d cost s und er R u l e 5 4 (d ). P i ck etti s w ro n g fo r a n u m b er o f reaso n s.5

Fi r s t , g o o d f

a i th a n d l i mi t e d f

i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a r e n o te n o u g h t o o v e r c o me the s tr ong pr e s um pt i on i n f a vorof a w a r di ng c os t s t o the pr e va i l i ng pa r ty . T he S ix th C ir c u it in W h ite & W h ite its e lf s ta te dth a t “[ g ]o o d f

a ith w ith o u t m o r e . . . is a n i n s u f f i c i e n tb a s i s f

o rd e n y i n g c o s t s t o ap r e v a i l i n g p a r ty . ” I d . a t7 3 1 . Ou ro wn e n b a n c d e c is io n in C h ap m a n v . A I T r a n s p o r ta tio n h e ld th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld no tconsi der the re l at i ve w ea l th o f the part i es i n d ec i di ng w hether t o rej ec t p r e v a ilin g - p a rty c o s ts . 2 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 9 . S e c ond, thi s c a s e w a s notac l os e a nd di f f i c ul tone . A s ouropi ni on i n the appe a l on the m e r i t s e xpl a i ns , w i tne s s e s f orboth pa r t i e s a gr e e d tha tT y s on ha d a nu m ber of c om pet i t i ve j ust i fi ca t i on s f or i t s a l l egedl y unfai r pra ct i ce s. T he l egal i ssu es w ere n o tp art i cu l arl y n o v el o r d i ffi cu l t . A l th o u g h i tt o o ka l o n g t i m e t o try, the ca se w as no tes peci al l y c om pl i ca t ed. In thatre spec t , i tdi ff er s f rom the c om pl i c a t e d a nt i trus tl a w s ui ti nvol ve d i n W hi t e & W hi t e . S e e i d. a t733. A s w e e x p la in e d in C h ap m a n , ad is tr ic t c o u r t n e e d s a“s o u n d b a s is ” to ov er com e the strong pres um pt i on thata pre vai l i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o cost s. T here
w a s none i n thi s c a s e . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a w a r di ng cost s t o T ys on un der R ul e 54(b)(1). A F F I R M E D .