Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
133 S. Ct. 1166
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Marx filed an FDCPA action against GRC after EdFund hired GRC to collect a defaulted student loan.
- District court bench-tried the case; Marx failed to prove FDCPA violations; GRC was the prevailing party.
- GRC sought costs totaling $7,779.16; the court awarded Marx $4,543.03 after reducing some items.
- Marx argued § 1692k(a)(3) provides the exclusive basis for costs, displacing Rule 54(d)(1).
- Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, holding costs available under Rule 54(d)(1) and rejecting Rule 68(d) as basis here.
- Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit and held § 1692k(a)(3) is not contrary to Rule 54(d)(1); costs may be awarded without a bad-faith finding in FDCPA cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1692k(a)(3) displace Rule 54(d)(1) for costs? | Marx: §1692k(a)(3) provides exclusive basis; only bad-faith harassment cases may recover costs. | GRC: §1692k(a)(3) does not displace Rule 54(d)(1); allows costs only in bad-faith cases but does not foreclose other costs. | Not contrary; §1692k(a)(3) does not displace Rule 54(d)(1). |
| Whether the second sentence of §1692k(a)(3) creates a negative implication that costs are unavailable otherwise. | Marx argues negative implication precludes costs in non-bad-faith cases. | GRC argues silence for non-bad-faith cases does not displace default; costs may still be awarded under Rule 54(d)(1). | No negative implication; does not foreclose costs in other circumstances. |
| Is the phrase 'and costs' in §1692k(a)(3) superfluous or meaningful? | Marx: 'and costs' would be superfluous if costs aren’t recoverable except in bad-faith cases. | GRC: Redundancy is possible; cannot render entire provision meaningless; Congress included to address costs explicitly. | Canon of surplusage not controlling to require rule displacement. |
| Does Rule 54(d)(1) provide the default that can be displaced by a later statute like §1692k(a)(3)? | Marx: Rule 54(d)(1) is displaced by statute that 'provides otherwise'. | GRC: Only statutes that are contrary or provide a different standard displace; §1692k(a)(3) does not. | §1692k(a)(3) provides a different standard, but does not foreclose costs under Rule 54(d)(1) when bad faith isn't shown. |
| What is the practical effect on awarding costs in FDCPA cases where bad faith is not proven? | Marx: FDCPA plaintiffs’ indigency should be considered; costs should not be routinely awarded against them. | GRC: Court may consider indigency but §1692k(a)(3) does not require bad-faith finding for costs to be recoverable under Rule 54(d)(1). | Costs may be awarded under Rule 54(d)(1) without a bad-faith finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (1981) (Rule 68(d) applicability in different settlement scenarios)
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (background rule on attorney’s fees and costs; 'American Rule' concepts)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012) (Rule 54(d) discretion and the meaning of 'should' in costs)
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (interpretation of statutory language and ensuring no surplusage)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004) (textual interpretation: 'during any civil action' limits rights)