Henderson v. Five Properties, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAELA HENDERSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-750
FIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Michaela Henderson moves the Court for a review of the
Clerk’s taxation of costs in favor of defendants Five Properties, LLC; APMT
Management Services, and Suzanne Tonti. 1 	For the following reasons, the
Court grants plaintiff’s motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Henderson sued challenging defendants’ failure to waive a
nonrefundable fee for the emotional support animal she relies on to manage
symptoms of her mental disabilities. 2
On July 16, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary
judgment because Henderson failed to establish that the waiver of the animal
1 	R. Doc. 100.
2 	For a more in-depth discussion of the facts underlying this case, see
generally R. Doc. 93.
Case 2:24-cv-00750-SSV-KWR Document 104 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 4

2
fee was indispensable and essential to ameliorate her disability. 3 	On
September 3, 2025, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a taxation of costs in the
amount 	of 	$5,143.45 	against 	Henderson 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 54(d). 4 Plaintiff now moves the Court for a review of the taxation
of costs. 5
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) states that “[u]nless a federal
statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs . . . should be
allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). A district court has
“wide discretion” in deciding whether to award costs to the prevailing party.
Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 467 F.3d 471, 483 (5th Cir. 2006)
(cleaned up). On motion and within seven days of the taxation of costs, the
Court may review the Clerk’s action. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). 	But there is a
“strong presumption” contained in Rule 54 that the prevailing party will be
awarded costs. Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir. 2006).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Defendants are the prevailing party in this case. The prevailing party
is prima facie entitled to costs, and the losing party must overcome that
3 	R. Doc. 93, at 11.
4 	R. Doc. 99.
5 	R. Doc. 100. The defendants opposed the motion in R. Doc. 103.
Case 2:24-cv-00750-SSV-KWR Document 104 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 4

3
strong presumption. 	Id. 	The Fifth Circuit has identified the following
circumstances which, if present, may justify denial of costs to the prevailing
party: “(1) the losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by
the prevailing party; (3) close and difficult legal issues presented; [and] (4)
substantial benefit conferred on the public . . . .” 	Pacheco, 448 F.3d at 794.
An additional factor the Fifth Circuit considers is whether “the losing party
prosecuted the action in good faith.” Id. But good faith may not be the sole
reason for denying costs to the prevailing party. Id. at 795.
Applying the Pacheco factors, the Court finds that Henderson has
rebutted 	Rule 	54(d)’s 	strong 	presumption 	that 	defendants 	should 	be
awarded costs. Henderson brought her claims in good faith. See id. at 794.
Further, her case required interpretation of novel Supreme Court precedent
not yet addressed in the Fifth Circuit, which provided benefit to the public. 6
Id. The Pacheco factors here outweigh the strong presumption for awarding
costs to the prevailing party.
Accordingly, the Court vacates the Clerk’s taxation of costs against the
defendants.
6 	R. Doc. 93, at 5-6 (citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603
U.S. 369, 392 (2024)).
Case 2:24-cv-00750-SSV-KWR Document 104 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of October, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00750-SSV-KWR Document 104 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 4