Tyler v. O'Neill

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-13-2004
Tyler v. O'Neill
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4857
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Tyler v. O'Neill" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 233.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/233
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
No. 03-4857
GARY C. TYLER,
Appellant
v.
GEORGE M. O'NEILL; MICHELENIA O'NEILL;
W.M. M. HENDRICKSON INC.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 97-cv-03353)
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Thomas J. Rueter
_______
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 7, 2004
Before: SLOVITER, VAN ANTWERPEN and COW EN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 13, 2004 )
________
OPINION OF THE COURT
VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Gary C. Tyler challenges the Order of the Magistrate Judge entered on
November 24, 2003, which affirmed the Clerk of Court’s taxation of costs in favor of
Defendants/Appellees, and the District Court’s Order of December 8, 2003, which
entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,787.03.
For the following reasons, we hold that the District Court’s assessment of prevailing party
status under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) in favor of Appellees and
consequent affirmation of the Clerk of Court’s taxation of costs against Appellant was
proper. Accordingly, the District Courts order is affirmed.
I. Facts
As this opinion is written for the benefit of the parties, we briefly discuss only the
pertinent facts. Appellant commenced this action on May 12, 1997, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO arising out of his
10% shareholder interest in William M. Henrickson, Inc. (“Hendrickson”). Appellant
proceeded to trial on six claims, for which he was seeking in excess of one million
dollars; Appellees filed a counterclaim challenging Appellant’s 10% ownership in
Hendrickson. During the course of litigation, the court compelled Appellees to produce
records Appellant sought pursuant to 15 Pa. C.S.A. § 1508, thus mooting Appellant’s
claim for access to books and records. In addition, Appellant’s claim for wages owed
pursuant to 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq. was settled pre-trial for $5,000.00.
On June 4, 1998, a jury found Appellees liable for breach of fiduciary duty and
fraud to Appellant individually, but not liable on Appellant’s other individual claims or
2
on the derivative claims. The jury awarded compensatory damages to Appellant in the
amount of $225,000.00 against Appellee George O’Neill and $0 against Appellee
Michelenia O’Neill. The jury found in favor of Appellant on the Appellees’
counterclaim. The court entered Civil Judgments accordingly.
Appellees filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law to vacate, alter,
or amend judgment. Based upon the jury’s finding that Appellant should have known of
the fraud in March, 1991, the court determined that Appellant’s claims of fraud and
breach of fiduciary duty were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On
December 15, 1998, the court entered an Order vacating the Civil Judgments entered in
accordance with the jury’s findings. The jury verdict on the counterclaim in favor of
Appellant was not disturbed. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment notwithstanding
the verdict in favor of Appellees. Tyler v. O’Neill, 189 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 1999) (table),
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1137 (2000).
On April 8, 2003, the Clerk of Court entered a taxation of costs in favor of
Appellees in the amount of $3,787.03. In a Memorandum and Order entered on
November 24, 2003, the District Court affirmed the Clerk’s taxation of costs. A final
judgment in favor of Appellees was entered on December 8, 2003.
II. Jurisdiction
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant’s state law claims
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1332 and also pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1331, as supplemental to
3
Appellant’s federal claims. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
The question of whether a party is the “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding
costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) is a legal issue subject to plenary review. Institutionalized
Juveniles v. Sec’y of Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897, 926 (3d Cir. 1985). While we
exercise plenary review of legal questions pertaining to Rule 54(d)(1), we review the
district court’s application of those legal precepts for abuse of discretion. See In re Paoli
R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000). We review the district court’s
findings of fact for clear error. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Educ. of
Del., 90 F.3d 752, 759 (3d Cir. 1996).
B. Taxing of Costs
The taxing of costs is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), which provides in
relevant part:
Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the
United States or in these rules, costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be
allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise
directs; . . . Such costs may be taxed by the clerk on one day’s notice. On
motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the clerk may be
reviewed by the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).
Appellant advances two arguments in support of the contention that Appellees
were not the “prevailing party” for purposes of assessing costs. First, Appellant
4
maintains that he was the prevailing party because he was afforded concrete relief in the
course of the litigation--namely, that he succeeded in obtaining access to Hendrickson’s
books and records, and payment of wages. Alternatively, Appellant asserts that neither
party was the prevailing party because Appellees lost on their counterclaim, which
Appellant contends presented a critical issue in the litigation and required proof outside
the scope of Appellant’s claims. Consequently, he asserts that each party should be
responsible for its own costs.
In this Circuit, the standard used for determining prevailing party status is
“whether plaintiff achieved ‘some of the benefit sought’ by the party bringing the suit.”
Institutionalized Juveniles, 758 F.2d at 910 (citations omitted). In applying this standard,
it is important to identify the relief plaintiff sought and, when relevant, the legal theories
upon which relief was based. Id. at 911. Ordinarily, a party in whose favor judgment is
rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d). 10 Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. M iller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2667 (3d ed. 1998).
Because the test focuses on the relief actually obtained, however, “[i]n assessing who is a
prevailing party, we look to the substance of the litigation’s outcome,” and “refuse to give
conclusive weight to the form of the judgment.” Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312, 1322 (3d
Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 3048, 65 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1980). It
logically follows from this approach that a party is prevailing to the extent extrajudicial
relief renders claims moot. Institutionalized Juveniles, 758 F.2d at 911 (citing Horn, 598
5
F.2d at 1322). Moreover, significant to the prevailing party inquiry is whether the
resolution of the dispute materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. See
Truesdell v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 290 F.3d 159, 163-64 (3d Cir. 2002). This may
occur through, for example, an enforceable judgment on the merits, or a settlement
agreement enforceable through a court-ordered consent decree. Buckhannon Bd. And
Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. Of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604,
121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001).
Where a defendant successfully defends against a plaintiff’s substantial claims and
judgment is entered accordingly, the defendant is generally considered the prevailing
party for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1). See, e.g., Russian River Watershed Protection
Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9 th Cir. 1998). In light of the rule
that “a determination of who is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs should
not depend on the position of the parties at each stage of the litigation but should be made
when the controversy is finally decided,” W right, Miller & Kane, supra § 2667, we agree
with the District Court that Appellant’s success in obtaining discovery and pre-trial
settlement of one of his minor claims does not justify awarding him prevailing party
status. Appellant failed to obtain relief on any of his major claims; his limited pre-trial
success is insignificant in the context of the relief sought by the entire Complaint.
Indeed, on all Appellant’s major claims, judgment was entered in favor of Appellees.
Appellant’s alternative argument that neither party is the prevailing party because
6
Appellees did not prevail on their counterclaim is likewise unpersuasive under these
circumstances. Appellant relies primarily on Kropp v. Ziebarth, 601 F.2d 1348, 1358
n.27 (8 th Cir. 1979) and Srybnik v. Epstein, 230 F.2d 683, 686 (2d Cir. 1956) in support
of the proposition that when neither plaintiff nor defendant prevails on its claim, costs
should be denied to both parties. Significantly, however, neither the Second nor Eighth
Circuits purport to create an unqualified rule to this effect. Rather, a case-specific inquiry
must be undertaken to determine whether, under circumstances where neither party
triumphs on its claim, one party can nonetheless be deemed the prevailing party. While
some courts have appropriately denied awarding costs to either party when neither party
has prevailed on its claims, see, e.g., Magee v. McNany, 11 F.R.D. 592 (W.D. Pa. 1951),
others have appropriately taxed costs in favor of a defendant who failed to sustain a
counterclaim yet successfully defended against a plaintiff’s substantial claims, see, e.g.,
Scientific Holding Co. v. Plessy, Inc., 510 F.2d 15, 28 (2d Cir. 1974); Brenner v. World
Boxing Council, 675 F.2d 445, 456 (2d Cir. 1982); Lacovara v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 959 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
We decline to fashion a rule of law that would without exception require each
party to bear its own costs when neither succeeds on its affirmative claim. While
requiring each party to bear its own costs under such circumstances may at times be
appropriate, the situation presented here as well as in the cases cited above illustrate that
there may exist a “prevailing party” within the meaning of Rule 54(d)(1) even where
7
neither party succeeds on its affirmative claim. This determination is fact-specific.
A number of our district courts have directly confronted this issue and illuminated
the pertinent factors to be considered in addressing it. Generally, in assessing prevailing
party status when neither party has prevailed on its affirmative claims, courts examine
whether the defendant has advanced counterclaims that are not related in some way to the
main complaint, or otherwise require proof outside the scope of the plaintiff’s claim, and
also examine the relative “size” of the counterclaims in comparison to the counts in the
complaint. In Lacovara, upon noting that the defendant’s counterclaim was limited to
$4,494 while the complaint sought over $80,000, and that the bulk of the trial consisted of
proving plaintiff’s claims, the district court determined the defendant to be the prevailing
party despite the fact that neither party had been awarded damages. 102 F.R.D. at 961.
The district court supported its analysis with the Second Circuit’s decision in Scientific
Holding Co. In that case, judgment was entered dismissing both plaintiff’s complaint and
defendant’s counterclaim, with costs taxed in favor of the defendant. Judge Friendly
rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant could not be the prevailing party
under Rule 54(d) because it had lost on its counterclaim as “too wooden a view.” 510
F.2d at 28. Instead, the Second Circuit reasoned:
At trial [the defendant] limited its counterclaim to the two items mentioned
in Part V of this opinion. Little trial time was spent on the counterclaim,
whereas consideration of plaintiff’s claim for $1,260,000 compensatory
damages plus punitive damages required three weeks of trial, 16 witnesses,
over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than 100 exhibits. District courts
have held that a defendant who successfully fends off a large claim may be
8
awarded costs despite failure to prevail on a counterclaim.
Id. (citations omitted). See also City of Rome v. Glanton, 184 F.R.D. 547, 550-51 (E.D.
Pa. 1999) (finding neither party to be the prevailing party in light of the “aggressive
stance taken by the defendants in expanding the case far beyond the allegations in the
complaint,” but acknowledging that “[t]his is not to say that a defendant that succeeds in
defending itself against a complaint but that advances unsuccessful counterclaims should
always lose its presumptive rights to costs.” The court should look to the nature of the
counterclaims and their relationship to the main complaint); Hubner v. Schoonmaker, No.
89-3400, 1993 WL 273689, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 1993) (“Where plaintiffs fail to
sustain their original claim and defendants assert a counterclaim which presents no issue
requiring proof outside the scope of plaintiffs’ claim, even where the plaintiffs prevail on
the counterclaim, costs may be taxed in favor of defendants as the prevailing parties.”).
In the case sub judice, judgment was entered in favor of Appellees with respect to
Appellant’s claims, which cumulatively sought in excess of one million dollars, and
judgment was entered in favor of Appellant with respect to Appellees’ sole counterclaim,
which contested Appellant’s 10% ownership in Hendrickson and sought rescission. The
District Court specifically found that Appellees’ counterclaim “involved the same legal
and factual issues which formed the basis of the defense to the complaint,” and found that
the counterclaim did not require proof outside of Appellant’s claim. Given the limited
scope of the counterclaim and Appellees’ success in defending against Appellant’s much
9
larger claims for damages, the District Court properly determined that Appellees were the
prevailing party and entitled to costs.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm both the District Court’s Memorandum and
Order dated November 21, 2003 which affirmed the Clerk of Court’s taxation of costs
and the District Court’s final Order of December 8, 2003 which entered Judgment in
favor of Defendants/Appellees against Appellant in the amount of $3,787.03.
10