costs

Kansas v. Colorado

Issues

When the Supreme Court hears a case under its exclusive, original jurisdiction, is it bound by rules set by Congress concerning the award of expert witness costs?

Court below
Original Jurisdiction

 

Since 1902, Kansas and Colorado have been disputing the proper use of the Arkansas River. Each time a new issue arises, the Supreme Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over this type of case, has called upon a Special Master to hear the arguments and make a determination. In the most recent case, Kansas claimed that Colorado violated the Arkansas River Compact by depleting the river of water that the Compact reserves for Kansas. Extensive expert witness testimony was required in the case, and ultimately the Special Master ruled in favor of Kansas. The Special Master also decided that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), expert witness fees would be limited to $40 per day. Kansas, having spent more than $9 million dollars on expert witnesses throughout the case, disagrees with this determination, arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) does not apply to cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will decide whether it is bound by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) when hearing a case under its original jurisdiction or whether, as argued by Kansas, the Court is free to make its own determination regarding fees. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The State of Kansas excepts to the ruling of the Special Master that, in the exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court is bound by the Congressional limit on the federal district courts in awarding costs for expert witnesses.

Because this case is between “two or more states,” this is one of the rare cases where the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. U.S.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

In 2007, Petitioner Olivea Marx defaulted on her student loans. Her debt was assigned to Respondent General Revenue Corporation (GRC) for collection. In their attempts to collect the debt, Marx claims that GRC called her multiple times a day and sent a fax to her employer. Marx sued GRC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), claiming that GRC’s attempts to collect her debt were acts of harassment in violation of the FDCPA. The District Court dismissed Marx’s claims and ordered her to pay GRC the costs of its defense. Marx argues that the FDCPA allows only an award of costs to defendants only if the plaintiff filed the suit in bad faith. In response, GRC argues that a court may award costs under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as there is no prohibition under the FDCPA. If Marx wins, consumers face less risk of carrying the costs of defendants in lawsuits against abusive debt collecting practices. If GRC wins, debt collectors are less vulnerable to abusive negotiation tactics of attorneys who bring meritless claims that would be less expensive to settle than to litigate.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provides that, "[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) (3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees should be allowed to the prevailing party."

The first question presented is whether a prevailing defendant in an FDCPA case may be awarded costs where the lawsuit was not "brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment." 2. The FDCPA defines "communication" as "conveying of information concerning a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). The statute generally bars debt collectors from communicating "in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer." § 1692c(b).

An exception to this bar allows a debt collector to "communicat[e]" with a debtor's employer solely to acquire "location information" about the debtor, but provides that a location information inquiry shall "not state that [the] consumer owes any debt" and not "indicate[] ... that the communication relates to the collection of a debt." § 1692b.

The second question presented is whether the FDCPA's strict limits on communications with third parties cease to apply when a debt collector, contacting a third party in connection with the collection of a debt, does not indicate the reason for the communication.

Issue

Whether a plaintiff who brings a good-faith claim under the FDCPA may be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees if they lose.

top

Edited by

Submit for publication
Submit for publication

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency; Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency; National Mining Association v. Environment Protection Agency

Issues

Is the EPA required to consider costs when determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities?

 

The United States Supreme Court will consider whether the EPA acted reasonably based on the agency’s interpretation of its obligations under the Clean Air Act when it did not consider the costs, during rulemaking, of regulating the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from oil- and coal-fired electric utilities. The Petitioners argue that because the EPA did not consider  cost  of compliance as a factor in its decision, the EPA’s rule is an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act and is unreasonable. The Respondents counter that the EPA acted reasonably and correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act by not considering  cost  of compliance as a factor in its decision to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric utility plants. The Court’s decision will implicate the regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric  utilities,  and may have broader implications for the statutory interpretation of similar regulatory mandates to agencies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Clean Air Act treats electric utilities differently from other sources of hazardous air pollutants. Other sources are required to limit their emissions if they exceed quantitative thresholds. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(1) & (d)(1). By contrast, before EPA regulates hazardous air pollutants from electric utilities, it must first conduct a study of the hazards to public health resulting from those emissions even after imposition of all the other requirements of the Clean Air Act, and then decide whether it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate such residual emissions under § 7412 after considering the results of the study. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A).

The question for the Court is:

Whether EPA's interpretation of "appropriate" in 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) is unreasonable because it refused to consider a key factor (costs) when determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) in 1970, including what is now § 7412, to address issue of air pollution, focusing on reducing hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”). See White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to costs