How would we know?
Is having the loser pay the winner’s court costs rare in the U.S.? I thought it was fairly common, at least in Canada.
The general rule in the American legal system is that all parties pay their own costs, regardless of who wins or who loses. There are some exceptions, but there are fairly high hurdles to get compensation.
Is that not unfair?
If the other party was wrong then why should you be out of pocket?
To generalize at least one reason, we don’t want to discourage prople from pursuing their fights because of the possibility they’ll have to pay the other side’s expenses. Just because you lost in the end doesn’t mean you were wrong to try.
Well, awarding costs is not that rare. Awarding attorneys fees, on the other hand, is much rarer, and usually happens only where required by statute. Costs are items such as filing fees and photocopying in the U.S.
So, what the British system calls costs are rarely awarded here.
Correct. There’s a distinction between attorneys fees (what you paid your lawyers) and costs (what you paid for things like copying, filing fees, jury fees, etc.). In California, by statute, the “prevailing party” is entitled to get his costs paid by the loser. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1032(a)(4), (b)). The costs one can claim are identified in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5.
By contrast, in California, you can only claim attorneys fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5(a)(10).)
That said, and to respond to the OP, no, I don’t see any perjury. To get costs, Westboro likely had to submit an application for costs. That application would have been signed under penalty of perjury, and generally with the receipts attached. I.e., the application would have said under penalty of perjury something like, “we submitted the record on appeal, which was 2,000 pages long, and we had to submit 10 copies. That’s 20,000 pages, and we were charged 50 cents a page for copying and binding for a total of $10,000. See Exhibit A, page 2, for the receipt.” The court, which actually looked at the record, can in its discretion cut down that amount (for example, if the copies of the record it got were a mess). Or, if the court finds that there was some merit in the other side’s opinion, or if the equities otherwise require, the court can deny costs.
I don’t see any perjury. All the person is saying is that Westboro wants more publicity, so they’ll say something inflammatory. But to suggest that Westboro didn’t actually incur the costs based solely on one statement to the press isn’t fair; you’d have to investigate the cost application. Which of course you can do, as it’s a publicly filed document.
I read about this and as much as I hate to think “Bill O’Reilly” and “Good job, sir” in the same sentence I must. Glad he did that.
Believe me, I’d like on one level to see attorney’s fees awarded way more often - the area of law I work in involves statutory triple damages, so it becomes worth a plaintiff rolling the dice on a crappy case, especially if they are in financial trouble.
However, awards of attorney’s fees also load the game heavily in favor of large defendants. A small plaintiff is, in many situations, compelled to seek contingent representation - betting a third of their potential settlement on winning. If the standard is to award fees against the loser, the defendant corporation can insultate itself by running up extremely high bills - enough to significantly shift the calculation of whether to bring the suit.
If there are 1,000 potential plaintiffs, each with damages of around $1 million… And let’s also presume that class status isn’t available here.
Let’s say the plaintiff has a very good case - a 90% chance of winning. The corporation can essentially make it extremely unlikely the suit is ever bought by racking up fees of $10 million defending itself (significantly less than this case would cost to settle, and significantly less than it would likely lose if all 1,000 plaintiffs went to court individually). What it has done is made the expected benefit of bringing the suit zero to the plaintiff.
So, I’d like to see judges use their discretion more in awarding fees, especially in treble damages situations. But as a general rule, I prefer the idea that people are responsible for their own attorney’s fees unless otherwise mandated in statute (civil rights cases, for example).
I seem to remember reading that in several European countries- or at least the UK and Austria- it either is or at least used to be standard for the losing party to pay court costs for both parties. Is this still true?
It is in Ireland anyway, and I think the UK.
Costs can be ‘taxed’ though, so there are limits on how much costs can be inflated.
I agree with “glad he did that” but with that guy the cynic in me cannot help but think it was not kindness on his part but rather a PR ploy.
Still, the end result was good so a grudging kudos to O’Reilly from me.
Dunno about other states, but the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow the prevailing party to tax pretty much any costs except attorney’s fees, even in the case of voluntary dismissals. See page 102 here (.pdf).
The Florida Bar proposes and the State Supreme Court certifies guidelines for which costs are taxable and which are not, but they’re not binding and judges have enormous leeway in awarding (or denying) costs.
Strictly speaking, parties can only move for costs associated with witnesses who actually testify or whose depositions are entered into evidence, and relied on in the court’s ruling; plus copying charges and reporting/service fees.