Collett v. Weyerhaeuser Company
2:19-cv-11144
| E.D. La. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- The case involves Dorothy Gail Collett and Joshua Collett, plaintiffs who lost a suit against Weyerhaeuser Company, Thornhill Forestry Service, Inc., and Lafayette Insurance Company.
- Defendants filed bills of costs after prevailing, which were taxed against the Colletts by the Clerk of Court.
- Plaintiffs moved for review and reconsideration of the costs assessment, primarily citing their indigency and inability to pay.
- The Court previously referred a similar motion to the Clerk, who denied it; plaintiffs' most recent motion closely resembled earlier submissions.
- The Court required plaintiffs to address the five factors from Pacheco v. Mineta regarding whether to withhold costs from the prevailing party.
- Ultimately, the Court found the plaintiffs did not sufficiently address the factors beyond their indigency or show grounds for withholding costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ indigency warrants denial or reduction of awarded costs | The Colletts cannot pay due to indigency and relative wealth disparity with defendants | Defendants' entitlement to costs is strongly presumed; indigency alone isn't enough | Indigency alone, under 5th Cir. precedent, does not allow denial/reduction of costs |
| Whether other equitable factors justify withholding costs | Plaintiffs did not argue other factors | No misconduct, no close questions, no public benefit, no basis to withhold costs | No other Pacheco factors present; costs awarded to defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (enumerates five factors that may justify withholding costs from the prevailing party)
- Moore v. CITGO Refining & Chem. Co., 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013) (declares it impermissible to reduce a cost award based solely on a prevailing party's wealth or a losing party's limited resources unless indigency is truly demonstrated)
- Smith v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 909 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2018) (reaffirms that costs may be awarded to defendants even where plaintiffs face serious financial hardship, absent other compelling factors)