Adams, et al v. USA, No. 4:2003cv00049 - Document 2151 (D. Idaho 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE BLM MOTION FOR COSTS denying 2147 Motion for Costs. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO TIMM ADAMS, et al., Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE BLM MOTION FOR COSTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a motion for costs filed by the BLM. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. The Court will deny the motion for the reasons explained below. ANALYSIS After eight years of hard fought litigation, the plaintiffs action against the BLM was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Adams v. U.S., 658 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011). The BLM now seeks over $900,000 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, which provides: Whenever any action or suit is dismissed in any district court, the Court of International Trade, or the Court of Federal Claims for want of jurisdiction, such court may order the payment of just costs. The Circuit has held that [w]here the underlying claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the award of costs is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1919. Miles v. State of Cal., Memorandum Decision & Order - 1 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir.2003). Section 1919 is permissive, allows the district court to award just costs, and does not turn on which party is the prevailing party. Id. at n. 2. Just costs under § 1919 are those costs that are fair to award considering the totality of the circumstances. Plata v Darbun Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WL 3184298 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 11, 2010). While some years ago the Ninth Circuit suggested in an unpublished opinion the Court will not use for precedential purposes that § 1919 is triggered only by bad faith or frivolous litigation, Price v City of Hollister, 1988 WL 82842 at *3 (9th Cir. July 27, 1988), the Circuit has not since adopted that statement in a published opinion. There is, however, a Supreme Court decision that examines similar language contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) stating that the court may require payment of just costs if it finds that it lacks jurisdiction over a removed case. The Supreme Court held that no costs should be awarded under that language if the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Applying that language here, the Court finds that plaintiffs had an objectively reasonable basis for jurisdiction. Despite being eventually overruled, the Court found in plaintiffs favor on the jurisdictional issue. While the Court felt that plaintiffs had a strong case for jurisdiction, it was at the very least a close call, and the Court could not find that plaintiffs took an unreasonable position from an objective standpoint. But even if an award of just costs is triggered by something less than the Martin standard, the Court cannot find that standard met here. A just standard would at least Memorandum Decision & Order - 2 require a finding that an award of costs was fair or justified for some reason beyond simply that the BLM prevailed; otherwise the statute would have simply awarded costs to the prevailing party, an option Congress did not choose. Miles, 320 F.3d at 988 n. 2. The BLM argues that plaintiffs resisted staying the case until the jurisdiction question could be settled, resulting in the BLM incurring exorbitant expenses. See BLM Reply Brief (Dkt. No. 2150) at p. 4. But it was the Court that pushed this case because the massive delays that did occur were unacceptable; the pace of the case was not set by shadowy actions of the plaintiffs. For all of these reasons, the Court cannot find that an award of costs would be just in this case. The Court will therefore deny the BLM s motion. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the BLM s motion for costs (docket no. 2147) is DENIED. DATED: March 12, 2012 Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge Memorandum Decision & Order - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
