Opinion ID: 2499779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: $35.00 Summons and Complaint Service Fee on Amy Bates

Text: [¶ 12] Jones contends that he should not be taxed for this cost because Bates was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in this action and because the district court ordered Bates to pay her own costs. We disagree. [¶ 13] This Court has held that costs should not be awarded for service fees upon parties with whom the successful party has settled. State v. Dieringer, 708 P.2d 1, 11 (Wyo.1985). We find the present case distinguishable, however, in that there was no settlement between Artery and Bates. Rather, on the morning of the first day of trial, Jones, who lives with and was counsel for Bates, stipulated to one hundred percent liability and the dismissal of Bates as a codefendant. Under these circumstances, Jones has not shown an abuse of discretion by the district court. [¶ 14] We also find no inconsistency between the district court's order requiring Bates to pay her own costs and the order requiring Jones to pay this service fee. The fee for service of the summons and complaint on Bates was not one of Bates' costs, it was one of Artery's costs. The two orders are not in conflict, and the district court thus did not abuse its discretion in requiring Jones to pay the fee for service on Bates. [¶ 15] Finally, we are not persuaded by Jones' hypothetical scenario of being required to pay the service costs for twenty additional defendants voluntarily dismissed from an action. The facts and circumstances in each case will inform the district court's exercise of discretion, and if there were a case in which there were twenty such additional defendants voluntarily dismissed, the quantity and voluntarily dismissal of those defendants would be factors to be considered and weighed by the district court. That is precisely the nature of Rule 501. The guidelines as to allowable costs are discretionary, not mandatory.