Lei Ke v. Drexel University
686 F. App'x 98
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Lei Ke, a former Drexel medical student, sued Drexel and employees alleging racial discrimination; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this Court affirmed.
- Defendants filed a bill of costs; the District Court Clerk taxed costs of $4,503.15 against Ke on June 1, 2016.
- Ke filed objections to the bill of costs earlier; after the Clerk’s taxation Ke timely filed a pro se “notice of objection” in the District Court, which remains pending.
- Ke then appealed the Clerk’s taxation of costs to the Third Circuit before the District Court resolved his post-taxation objection.
- The Third Circuit sua sponte asked the parties to brief appellate jurisdiction and whether the Clerk’s taxation was a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Clerk’s taxation of costs is immediately appealable despite a pending District Court objection | Ke contends his post-taxation filing was not intended to seek District Court review (or was only for Clerk reconsideration) and that the Clerk’s judgment is final | Defendants urge treating Ke’s District Court filing as a nullity and permitting immediate appeal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Ke’s timely objection in the District Court is pending, so there is no final, appealable decision under §1291 |
| Whether a pro se “notice of objection” qualifies as a Rule 54(d)(1) motion for review | Ke argues the filing should not be treated as a District Court motion | Defendants argue form/labeling should not block appeal | Court liberally construed Ke’s notice as a Rule 54(d)(1) objection/motion for review and therefore effective |
| Whether the Court should ignore Ke’s pending objection to manufacture appellate jurisdiction | Ke attempted to disclaim intent to seek District Court review post-filing | Defendants support dismissal of the District Court filing as waived or irrelevant | Court refused to disregard the pending objection and declined to create appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether reassignment or mandamus relief was warranted | Ke requested reassignment in supplemental brief | Defendants opposed; court viewed request beyond directed scope | Request denied; court did not consider reassignment or mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenna v. City of Phila., 582 F.3d 447 (3d Cir. 2009) (discusses Clerk taxation and District Court review under Rule 54(d)(1))
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449 (3d Cir. 2000) (District Court reviews Clerk’s costs de novo; finality depends on District Court ruling)
- Reger v. The Nemours Found., Inc., 599 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2010) (exercised jurisdiction after District Court ruled on costs)
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (no final appealable decision on costs while District Court review is pending)
- Johnson v. United States, 780 F.2d 902 (11th Cir. 1986) (same principle on finality of costs rulings)
- Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113 (3d Cir. 1983) (finality requires district court review where magistrate or subordinate officer issued the decision)
- Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2007) (party may waive challenge to Clerk’s taxation by failing to seek District Court review)