Mario Lopez Garza v. Citigroup Inc, 881 F.3d 277

The Estate filed suit in S.D.N.Y. against Citigroup and others in July 2014, amended to add RICO claims, then voluntarily dismissed the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
The S.D.N.Y. denied sanctions against the Estate and noted Rule 41(d) allows costs to be awarded if the plaintiff refiles the same claim against the same defendant.
The Estate refiled in D. Del. against Citigroup in June 2015 asserting an accounting claim; Citigroup moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d) for costs, including attorneys’ fees, and a stay.
The District Court granted costs and a stay but held Rule 41(d)’s reference to "costs" does not, by its plain language, authorize awarding attorneys’ fees; the stay was later lifted and litigation continued.
Citigroup cross‑appealed only the District Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees as "costs" under Rule 41(d); it did not properly press alternative bases (inherent power, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or bad‑faith exceptions) below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "costs" in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d) includes attorneys’ fees	Estate: Rule 41(d) permits only ordinary costs; no attorneys’ fees available absent statute or other authority	Citigroup: "Costs" should include attorneys’ fees routinely to deter forum‑shopping; awardable under Rule 41(d) alone	Court: "Costs" in Rule 41(d) include attorneys’ fees only when the underlying substantive statute defines costs to include them; Rule 41(d) alone does not authorize fees
Whether Citigroup may recover fees under other doctrines (inherent power, §1927, bad‑faith)	Estate: No fees unless properly raised and proven; no bad faith shown below	Citigroup: Could obtain fees under bad‑faith exceptions or §1927 as alternative bases	Court: Citigroup waived these alternatives by failing to raise them below and by raising bad‑faith only at oral argument/reply; cannot obtain remand on that basis

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (unadorned "costs" in Rule 68 does not automatically include attorneys’ fees; fees require statutory or other authorization)
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (Sup. Ct.) (American Rule presumes each party pays its own attorneys’ fees absent statutory authorization)
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (Sup. Ct.) (court must identify authority to depart from American Rule before shifting fees)
Evans v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 623 F.2d 121 (8th Cir.) (held attorneys’ fees awardable under Rule 41(d))
Rogers v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir.) (held attorneys’ fees not awardable under Rule 41(d))
Esposito v. Piatrowski, 223 F.3d 497 (7th Cir.) (held Rule 41(d) permits fees only where underlying statute authorizes them)
Andrews v. Am.’s Living Ctrs., LLC, 827 F.3d 306 (4th Cir.) (adopted Esposito approach; fees under Rule 41(d) only if underlying statute defines costs to include fees)