Metro Express Trans. v. Timothy Bergeron ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
                               FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                          ___________
    
                                          No. 01-2636
                                          ___________
    
    Metro Express Transportation               *
    Services, Inc., a Missouri                 *
    corporation; Freightlist.com, Inc.,        *
    a Missouri corporation,                    *
                                               *
                 Appellees,                    *
                                               * Appeal from the United States
          v.                                   * District Court for the Eastern
                                               * District of Missouri.
    Timothy W. Bergeron,                       *
                                               * [UNPUBLISHED]
                 Appellant.                    *
                                          ___________
    
                              Submitted: November 7, 2001
                                  Filed: December 5, 2001
                                       ___________
    
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                              ___________
    
    PER CURIAM.
    
           Timothy Bergeron appeals the district court’s1 order denying him costs.
    Plaintiffs sued Bergeron for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence; Bergeron
    thereafter filed a third-party complaint against his previous employer, LiveWire,
    L.L.C., for indemnification and contribution. Ultimately he was released from all
    
    
          1
           The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    liability as a result of a settlement negotiated between plaintiffs and LiveWire. After
    granting plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice, the court
    denied Bergeron’s request for costs, which plaintiffs had resisted. For reversal,
    Bergeron complains that the district court failed to explain its reasons for denying his
    motion for costs. We reject Bergeron’s argument and affirm.
    
           At the time the district court denied the motion for costs, it had before it a
    complete history of the litigation, together with plaintiffs’ response to Bergeron’s
    motion, in which they advanced numerous reasons for denying costs to Bergeron
    including his conduct in allegedly prolonging the litigation. A district court has
    discretion whether to grant or deny costs, see Richmond v. Southwire Co., 
    980 F.2d 518
    , 520 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and there is no evidence that the court
    misapplied the law or abused its discretion in this case, see United States v. Otto, 
    176 F.3d 416
    , 418 (8th Cir. 1999) (judges are presumed to know law and apply it in
    making decisions).
    
          Accordingly, we affirm.
    
          A true copy.
    
                 Attest:
    
                         CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 01-2636

Filed Date: 12/5/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015