342 P.3d 365
Wyo.2014Background
- Plaintiffs sued Defendants over injuries from renting a mold-contaminated house.
- Defendants served a Rule 68 settlement offer of $25,000 on July 11, 2011, which Plaintiffs did not accept.
- Trial of Plaintiffs’ claims occurred September 23–27, 2013; Plaintiffs dismissed certain claims with prejudice at trial’s close.
- The district court later granted JMOL in Defendants’ favor on remaining claims (November 22, 2013).
- Defendants filed a certificate of costs December 9, 2018 seeking $2,874.56 under Rule 54(d), Rule 68, and Rule 501; the district court awarded $2,607.88 on January 8, 2014; Plaintiffs appealed alleging Rule 68 improper and excessive costs.
- The Supreme Court’s Delta rule and Wyoming law guided whether Rule 68 could shift costs; this Court held Rule 68 does not apply to prevailing parties and remanded for a proper Rule 54(d) costs ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Rule 68 applicable where the offeror wins? | Graus rely on Delta to say Rule 68 cannot shift costs when the offeror prevails. | OK Investments argues Delta applies; Rule 68 should limit costs only if judgment after offer is less favorable. | Rule 68 not applicable to the prevailing party; costs governed by Rule 54(d). |
| Were the costs awarded under Rule 54(d) and 501 properly supported and within limits? | Plaintiffs contend deposition and expert costs were not reasonably necessary and exceed limits. | Defendants contend costs were reasonably necessary and within 501 and statute limits. | Court remands for entry of costs consistent with ruling; some items reversed or reduced to comply with 501 and statutes. |
| Were deposition costs for Plaintiffs’ expert Danielson properly awarded? | Defendants failed to show deposition costs were reasonably necessary for trial. | Costs tied to deposition used for trial/ impeachment; adequately supported by record. | Deposition costs for Danielson reversed due to insufficient justification. |
| Are expert fees and witness-related costs properly allowable under 501 and statutes? | Expert fees for deposition and trial preparation exceed allowable amounts; some items unsupported. | Some expert fees and witness costs fall within 501 and statute limits. | Reduce Yasrobi expert fee to $25; deny deposition expert fee; allow subpoena/witness costs as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1981) (Rule 68 governs settlement offers and cost shifting when plaintiff prevails less favorably than offer)
- Bratton v. Blenkinsop, 2014 WY 87 (Wyo. 2014) (Guides interpretation of Rules 54(d) and 68 in Wyoming)
- Wilson v. Tyrrell, 2011 WY 7 (Wyo. 2011) (Abuse-of-discretion standard for costs; need record to review deposition costs)
- Garrison v. CC Builders, Inc., 2008 WY 34 (Wyo. 2008) (Verified bill of costs is prima facie evidence of proper costs)
- Beckwith v. Weber, 2012 WY 62 (Wyo. 2012) (Abuse of discretion standard for costs; legal standards for review)