Opinion ID: 3056515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Award of Costs to State Farm4

Text: Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in awarding costs to State Farm. Plaintiffs contend that so long as their lawsuit was based on a “bona fide controversy,” State Farm is not entitled to costs for defending it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that a court should award costs to a prevailing party “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). We have explained that Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In order “[t]o defeat the presumption and deny full costs, a district court must have and state a sound basis for doing so.” Id. at 1039. Here, we cannot say Plaintiffs have shown that the district court abused its discretion in awarding costs to State Farm as the prevailing party. Further, the district court’s order that Plaintiffs “take nothing” was proper, as they failed to prove that they were entitled to any relief. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is 4 We review a district court’s decision to award costs for an abuse of discretion. Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). 5 Plaintiffs argue that the district court’s “take nothing” statement meant the district court set aside the earlier payment amounts of $11,012.01 for the May 2009 loss and $5,702.76 for the March 2010 loss. The district court’s order did no such thing. Rather, it is undisputed that State Farm already tendered checks in these amounts to Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs received them. 15 Case: 12-11125 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 16 of 16 AFFIRMED. 16