Following a motion concerning jurisdiction, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,178.02, alleging misconduct by the opposing parties and excessive motion preparation requirements.
The responding parties argued that costs should be limited to the jurisdiction issue and capped at a substantially lower amount.
Applying the principles governing costs and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that substantial indemnity was not justified and that the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.
The court fixed costs at a reduced amount it considered fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to have expected to pay.
