Thomas v. Oregon State Police et al, No. 6:2012cv01167 - Document 86 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER: Granting Motion for Costs, $1,609.35, and Denying Motion for Attorney Fees 81 signed on 6/2/14 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (kf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERT THOMAS, Case No. 6:12-cv-01167-AA Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. OREGON STATE POLICE, OREGON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT (OREGON STATE FAIR & EXPO), STARPLEX CORPORATION, SCOTT VAUGHN, and TODD BURKE, Defendants. AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. law claims infliction dismissed of of negligence, emotional through motion false 1983 and state common § imprisonment distress. practice and intentional After several claims and settlement, the were case proceeded to trial on plaintiff's claims against defendants Burke and Vaughn and the Oregon State Police (OSP) . 1 - OPINION AND ORDER I l I On the first day of trial, plaintiff agreed to dismiss his I l I provide medical care, and he also dismissed his claims for false ' I r imprisonment J ! Fourteenth Amendment Remaining for and and negligence intentional claims infliction trial were plaintiff's of alleging failure emotional to distress. Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim against defendant Vaughn and two negligence claims against OSP. After plaintiff presented his case-in-chief, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The court reserved the motions. At the conclusion of evidence, the court heard oral argument and granted defendants' motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Defendants now move for an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Oregon law, claims were without foundation, arguing that plaintiff's frivolous and unreasonable. "A prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 only when the plaintiff's claims are 'groundless, without foundation, frivolous, or unreasonable.'" Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F. 3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Defendants argue that plaintiff's claims were baseless, as the facts presented at trial were disclosed by the State three years prior to discovery trial. Defendants responses were further different emphasize than that portions of plaintiff's his sworn testimony, suggesting discovery violations. r l t i I I f f i I I I ' I ! I I I ( I I I I ! ! I I l I ! I do not find that plaintiff's claims were so frivolous or unreasonable 2 to warrant - OPINION AND ORDER an award of fees incurred during the I .. pendency of the entire case. As plaintiff points out, defendants did not move implicitly acknowledging, for summary from the questions of fact were at issue. judgment court's the State before perspective, trial, that Though plaintiff's claims were supported by a slim reed of factual allegations, such claims must sometimes be subjected to the glare of the courtroom before the paucity of evidence is apparent.· While plaintiff's claims is debatable, I the reasonableness of nonetheless decline to award fees in this case. Defendants also seek an award of costs in the amount of $1,609.35. Under Federal Rule of 54(d), costs "should be allowed to the prevailing party." Defendants seek costs for deposition transcription, subpoena fees, and process server fees. These costs are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and will be awarded. CONCLUSION The State defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (doc. 81) is granted as to costs and denied as to attorney fees. Costs are awarded in the amount of $1,609.35. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this d 11 /) day of June, 2014. Ann Aiken United States District Judge 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
