Manning v. MAS Home Care of Maine

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-1~~ JL.t /1/;vJ- Clt;V}-3(~/dD I DUANE MANNING,

Plaintiff ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S v. MOTION FOR COSTS

MAS HOME CARE OF MAINE,

Defendant

Before the court is the defendant's motion for costs. The court concludes that such

an award is not available because the requisite finding regarding plaintiff's claims has not

been made. See Tejada-Batista v. Fuentes-Agostini, 267 F.Supp.2d 156, 159 (D. Puerto Rico

2003) (explaining that the court must find that the plaintiff's claims were "frivolous,

unreasonable and without foundation" to award attorney's fees); Allen v. City of Los

Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1058 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (denying request for attorney's fees where

plaintiff's claims were not "unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious"). The

standard applied to attorney's fees has been applied to litigation expenses. See Dowdell v.

City of Apopka, Florida, 698 F.2d 1181, 1190 & n.13 (11th Cir. 1983). The Hoffman case,

relied on by the defendant, does not apply a different standard to costs. See Hoffman v.

Applicators Sales & Serv., Inc., 2006 WL 5218268 (Me. Super. Oct. 16, 2006). In Hoffman, the

court awarded costs on the two counts decided by the Superior Court, claims for

defamation and breach of agreement. Id. The U.S. District Court decided the discrimination

claim and the issue of an award of attorney's fees was_ returned to federal court for

determination. Id. The entry is

Defendant's Motion for Costs/ Application for Taxation is DENIED.

Date: March 11, 2014 cy Mills Justice, Superior C urt

CUMBERLAND CV-12-384 GUY LORANGER ESQ ONE GRANNY SMITH COURT SUITE 3 OLD ORCHARD BEACH ME 04064

TANWY ALVAREZ ESQ \\D ROBERT BROOKS ESQ VERRILL & DANA PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 041120-0586