Court Opinion

ID: 9644355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:53:51.955839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:12.080043
License: Public Domain

DANA, Justice,
with whom ROBERTS and LIPEZ, Justices, join, dissenting.
[¶ 9] I respectfully dissent. Rule 68 leaves the court no discretion to refuse to award the offeror costs based on the financial circumstances of the offeree, and 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D does not dictate a contrary result.
[¶ 10] Rule 68 provides that “the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer” if the judgment obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the pretrial offer. The plain language of the rule makes an award of costs mandatory; the court has no discretion to excuse the offer-ee’s obligation pursuant to the Rule. United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 92 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 944, 136 L.Ed.2d 833 (1997); Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1278 (6th Cir.1991); Johnston v. Penrod Drilling Co., 803 F.2d 867, 869 (5th Cir.1986); Ezelle v. Bauer Corp., 154 F.R.D. 149, 152 (S.D.Miss.1994); Adams v. Wolff, 110 F.R.D. 291, 293 (D.Nev.1986); Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 485 F.Supp. 110, 113 (N.D.Cal.1979); Dual v. Cleland, 79 F.R.D. 696, 697 (D.D.C.1978); Darragh Poultry & Livestock Equip. Co. v. Piney Creek Sales, Inc., 294 Ark. 427, 743 S.W.2d 804, 806 (1988); Evans v. Sawtooth Partners, 111 Idaho 381, 723 P.2d 925, 931-32 (App.1986); Imperial Developers, Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 518 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn.Ct.App.1994). See also Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 354-55, 101 S.Ct. 1146, 1151, 67 L.Ed.2d 287 (1981) (defendant cannot invoke the mandatory award of costs under Rule 68 by making sham or nominal offers because Rule 68 does not apply when plaintiff recovers nothing at trial).
[¶ 11] 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D does not alter the mandatory nature of Rule 68. The provision in section 1502-D that gives the court discretion to waive the award of costs if the court determines that the imposition of costs would “cause a significant financial hardship to any party” applies to situations in which the court awards costs to the prevailing party, not to the unique circumstances in which a court awards costs to the losing party pursuant to Rule 68. Section 1502-D governs the procedure for the prevailing party’s recovery of costs by providing that
[t]he prevailing party or the prevailing party’s attorney may submit a bill of costs for all other costs or interest to the court ... and serve copies on all parties who have appeared and may be required to pay these costs. Any party required to pay all or any part of these costs ... may ... challenge any items of cost or interest and request review by the court.... If the presiding judge determines that the imposition of costs will cause a significant financial hardship to any party, the judge may waive all or part of the costs with respect to that party.
Reading the last sentence in the context of the whole section, the term “any party” is used to designate the non-prevailing party required to pay costs. In the Rule 68 situation, it is the prevailing party who is required to pay costs. Section 1502-D simply affirms the procedure applied in the typical situation in which costs are awarded to the prevailing *423party pursuant to Rule 54.11 In contrast to Rule 68, Rule 54 grants the court discretion to decline to award costs. M.R.Civ.P. 54(d); see also Delta Air Lines, 450 U.S. at 353, 101 S.Ct. at 1150. Nothing in the language of section 1502-D evinces an intent that its provisions apply to the unique situation in which the losing party is entitled to recover costs pursuant to Rule 68.12
[f 12] Furthermore, even if section 1502-D was intended to apply when the losing party is awarded costs pursuant to Rule 68, the last sentence of the statute giving the court the discretion to waive the award of costs must yield to the mandatory language of Rule 68. The Supreme Judicial Court has the authority to enact rules governing court procedure. Your Homes, Inc. v. City of Portland, 285 A.2d 372, 373 (Me.1972); 4 M.R.S.A. § 8 (1989). If a statute provides for a procedure that conflicts with one of our procedural rules, the rule controls. M.R.Civ.P. 81(e). See also Your Homes, 285 A.2d at 374 (to the extent that the sentence in the statute governing the notice of appeal was inconsistent with the Rule 80B requirement that notice be served in accordance with Rule 4, the Rule governs).
[¶ 13] “A procedural statute has been defined as one which neither enlarges nor impairs substantive rights but rather relates to the means and procedures for enforcing these rights.” Bellegarde Custom Kitchens v. Leavitt, 295 A.2d 909, 911 (Me.1972) (citation omitted). A statute providing for a device that controls the parties’ conduct of the trial constitutes a procedural rule. Batchelder v. Tweedie, 294 A.2d 443, 444 (Me.1972) (statute providing for prejudgment interest depending on the parties’ conduct was procedural, not substantive). In contrast, a statute that provides for a measure of damages is substantive. Id.
[¶ 14] The cost-shifting provision of Rule 68 is intended “to promote settlement and avoid protracted litigation^,]” Fuller v. State, 490 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Me.1985), and is therefore a procedural rule aimed at influencing the parties’ conduct before the trial. The Rule does not enlarge or impair any substantive right. Thus, to the extent that the discretionary cost-shifting procedure provided in section 1502-D conflicts with the mandatory language of Rule 68, the Rule’s procedure controls.

. Rule 54(d) provides: “Costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party, as provided by statute and by these rules, unless the court otherwise specifically directs.”

. The Statement of Fact accompanying section 1502-D provides that the statute's purpose “is to clarify by law those costs which shall be allowed to people who win their suits in civil cases." L.D. 735, Statement of Fact (112th Leg.1985) (emphasis added). Similarly, the other sections accompanying section 1502-D state that their provisions apply to the award of costs to prevailing parties. 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-B ("The following costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party_"); 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-C ("In addition to other costs allowed to the prevailing party....").