473 S.W.3d 177
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Riggs, an attorney for Missouri Department of Social Services, developed PTSD after witnessing a supervisor collapse at a performance meeting in 2008; she took FMLA leave, sought accommodations, never returned, and was terminated in April 2009.
- Riggs sued Social Services alleging MHRA disability discrimination and retaliation, and separate claims for Missouri constitutional violations; summary judgment disposed of the constitutional count for Social Services shortly before trial.
- The jury returned verdicts for Social Services on the MHRA claims; the trial court entered judgment awarding costs to Social Services and later an order purporting to tax $4,539.73 in costs.
- Riggs argued (1) statutory prohibition (Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.111.2) barred awarding costs to a prevailing state agency in MHRA cases and (2) the clerk’s taxation improperly included the cost of a video deposition in violation of Rule 57.03(c)(6).
- Riggs also claimed the trial judge made prejudicial comments during voir dire (saying the State is “broke” and agencies are “squeezed”) and admonished her publicly during cross-examination, warranting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could award costs in the judgment when defendant is a state agency in an MHRA case | Riggs: §213.111.2 bars a prevailing state agency from recovering costs in MHRA litigation | Social Services: trial court has discretion to award costs; Social Services prevailed on a separate constitutional count not covered by §213.111.2 | Court: Judgment awarding costs not an abuse of discretion because Social Services prevailed on count three (constitutional claim) and courts may apportion/award costs when some counts permit costs |
| Whether the taxation of specific costs (including a video deposition) was proper | Riggs: taxation improperly included video deposition cost; only statutory costs may be taxed | Social Services: clerk must tax costs; memorandum was a proposal—actual taxation is clerk’s ministerial duty | Court: challenge to the clerk’s taxation is premature; dismissal of that portion of appeal—trial court’s March 4, 2014 order taxing costs not final/appealable until clerk taxes and any retaxing is resolved |
| Whether judge’s voir dire comments about State finances and public admonishment of plaintiff in front of jury required new trial | Riggs: comments and public admonishment showed prejudice and bias, undermining fairness | Social Services: comments were intended to encourage candor and curb evasive testimony; judge may intervene to prevent waste and improper conduct | Court: comments did not constitute plain error; voir dire remark understandable contextually; public admonishment justified after repeated evasive conduct—no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706 (Mo. banc 2005) (trial court discretion to award costs)
- Montoya v. A-1 Mufflers, Inc., 331 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (clerk must tax costs; appellate review premature until clerk taxes and court addresses retaxing)
- Sasnett v. Jons, 400 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (plain-error standard in civil cases)
- Snellen ex rel. Snellen v. Capital Region Med. Ctr., 422 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (plain error review limited to manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice)
- Adkins v. Hontz, 337 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (court’s duty to select fair and impartial jury)
- Lorenzini v. Short, 312 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (only costs authorized by statute may be taxed)