Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12868 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/04/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12868 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

FANE LOZMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80118-DMM ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Fane Lozman appeals an order awarding costs to the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. He argues that, because the district court USCA11 Case: 25-12868 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/04/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12868

dismissed this action without prejudice for lack of ripeness, the City failed to obtain a preclusive judgment and was not a prevailing party entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). We affirm. In an earlier appeal, we vacated and remanded with instruc- tions to dismiss Lozman’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 119 F.4th 913 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2751 (2025). On remand, the City filed a bill of costs for $17,349.61 for deposition costs, copies and transcripts of depositions, service of subpoenas, and copies of hearings and proceedings. Lozman objected that the City was not a prevailing party under Rule 54(d) because the dis- trict court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court awarded the City $17,349.61. Two standards govern our review. “We review the factual findings underlying the district court’s prevailing party determina- tion for clear error.” Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach, 13 F.4th 1289, 1297 (11th Cir. 2021). We review de novo “[w]hether the facts as found . . . render the plaintiff a ‘prevailing party.’” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A prevailing party is entitled to costs, excluding attorney’s fees, unless a statute, rule, or court order provides otherwise. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). “[A] defendant need not obtain a favorable judg- ment on the merits in order to be a ‘prevailing party.’” CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 578 U.S. 419, 431 (2016). The reasoning USCA11 Case: 25-12868 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/04/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12868 Opinion of the Court 3

is straightforward: a defendant prevails the moment a claim is “re- buffed”—regardless of whether the judgment rests on a “nonmerits reason”—because the defendant has prevented a “material altera- tion” of the legal relationship. Id. The City is a prevailing party entitled to costs because it “re- buffed” Lozman’s complaint through a dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); CRST Van Expedited, 578 U.S. at 431. Although Lozman argues a judgment on the merits was required before the district court could award costs to the City, a defendant prevails whenever it prevents a “material alteration” of the legal relationship, regard- less of whether the district court reaches the merits of a plaintiff’s complaint. See CRST Van Expedited, 578 U.S. at 431. Because the dis- missal prevented a material alteration in the legal relationship be- tween Lozman and the City, the City was entitled to an award of costs. See id. We AFFIRM the order awarding costs to the City.