Collett v. Weyerhaeuser Company
2:19-cv-11144
| E.D. La. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Dorothy Gail Collett and Joshua Collett lost their lawsuit against Weyerhaeuser Company, Thornhill Forestry Service, Inc., and Lafayette Insurance Company.
- The Clerk of Court taxed costs against Plaintiffs as losing parties, which is standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
- Plaintiffs, citing their indigency, moved twice to have these costs reviewed and either reduced or excused.
- The Court ordered supplemental briefing from Plaintiffs on five equitable factors used to decide whether costs should be withheld, as articulated in Pacheco v. Mineta.
- Plaintiffs' supplemental filing did not meaningfully address all five factors, focusing only on their indigence and the defendants' financial resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should costs be taxed against plaintiffs under Rule 54(d)? | Indigence and inability to pay; defendants are large corporations. | Motion is redundant; Clerk's prior rulings were well reasoned. | Yes, Rule 54(d) presumption applies; indigence alone insufficient. |
| Impact of plaintiffs' indigency under Fifth Circuit precedent | Plaintiffs' financial hardship justifies excusing/reducing costs. | Limited resources alone not grounds for denial/reduction; precedent bars it. | Indigency alone does not justify denial or reduction of costs. |
| Applicability of Pacheco's five equitable factors | Plaintiffs did not substantively address all five factors. | Failure to address factors means standards for exception not met. | Plaintiffs failed to overcome presumption awarding costs. |
| Role of defendants' wealth in costs assessment | Defendants' enormous resources justify shifting or denying costs. | Defendants' wealth irrelevant under established law. | Comparative wealth is impermissible as basis to deny costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (enumerates five factors justifying denial of costs to prevailing party)
- Moore v. CITGO Refining & Chemicals Co., 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013) (prohibits reducing costs solely due to prevailing party's wealth or losing party's limited resources)
- Smith v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 909 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2018) (district court has discretion but Rule 54(d) typically requires imposing costs even on indigent parties absent other equitable factors)
- Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1985) (denial of costs is penal in nature and disfavored)