Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureTortsCostsRule 54(d)(1)Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)taxation of costsclerk reviewde novo review

Facts

Nineteen plaintiffs sued over alleged PCB contamination near the Paoli Railroad Yard, asserting personal injury, medical monitoring, and property-damage claims. After defendants prevailed at trial, the clerk taxed costs, and the district court ultimately awarded $154,129.30 in costs against the plaintiffs jointly and severally. In seeking district court review, plaintiffs submitted affidavits describing limited financial means, but the district court refused to consider those affidavits because they had not been presented to the clerk. Two plaintiffs, Cohen and Lament, asserted only property-damage claims, while most of the defendants' costs were incurred defending the personal injury and medical monitoring claims.

Issue

Whether the district court properly handled review of the clerk's taxation of costs under Rule 54(d)(1), including whether it could hear untimely objections, consider evidence not submitted to the clerk, consider indigency and other equitable factors, and impose joint and several liability on all nineteen plaintiffs. Also at issue was whether imposing all costs jointly and severally on plaintiffs whose claims accounted for only a discrete fraction of the costs was equitable.

Rule

Under Rule 54(d)(1), costs are presumptively awarded to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. A district court reviewing a clerk's taxation of costs acts de novo and may consider evidence not presented to the clerk; it may consider the prevailing party's bad faith or unclean hands and the losing party's indigency or inability to pay, but may not consider disparity of wealth, the losing party's good faith, or the closeness or complexity of the case as independent reasons to reduce costs. The district court may apportion costs or impose them jointly and severally, but abuses its discretion if it imposes full joint-and-several liability on parties responsible only for a discrete and readily identifiable fraction of the costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a defense verdict in a products case in Cleveland, the clerk taxed costs against Maya Ortiz on April 3. Because notice was mailed to the wrong suite number, Maya's lawyer did not learn of the taxation until April 9 and filed a motion for court review on April 11. A local rule says objections may be filed within five days after notice of taxation.

How should the district judge rule on the timeliness issue?

Explanation. Rule 54(d)(1) measures the review period from the clerk's action, not from notice. A conflicting local rule is invalid to that extent. But the deadline is not jurisdictional, so the district court may choose to hear untimely objections where fairness concerns such as delayed notice are present. (Derived from In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation (n.d.).)