Saavedra v. Dollar General Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KENNETH SAAVEDRA 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 23-5873
DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. ET AL. 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Clerk’s
Denial of Costs. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kenneth Saavedra alleged that he sustained injuries when he
tripped and fell at a Dollar General store in Violet, Louisiana on August 23,
2023. He brought this diversity action under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability
Statute against the owner of the Dollar General store, Defendant Dolgencorp,
LLC, for the injuries he sustained in the fall. The parties tried this matter
before a jury on July 14 through 16, 2025. The jury returned a verdict in which
it found that Defendant was at fault for Plaintiff’s accident but that Plaintiff
was not injured as a result of the accident. The Court entered judgment in
favor of Plaintiff as to fault and in favor of the Defendant as to injuries
sustained as a result of the incident.
Following trial, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs before the Clerk of Court,
requesting the taxation of costs as the prevailing party pursuant to Federal
Case 2:23-cv-05873-JTM-JVM Document 61 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Rule of Civil Procedure 54.1 The Clerk of Court denied Defendant’s request,
explaining that Defendant was not the prevailing party because it did not
prevail on the issue of fault. Defendant moved this Court to reconsider the
Clerk’s denial.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, following judgment,
costs should be allowed to the prevailing party. “The clerk may tax costs on 14
days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review
the clerk’s action.”2 “A district court reviews a Clerk of Court’s award of costs
by exercising its own discretion to ‘decide the cost question [it]self.’”3
The question here is whether Defendant is the “prevailing party” under
the terms of Rule 54. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to prove his negligence claim—i.e. the element of causation—
Defendant is the prevailing party. The Clerk of Court acknowledged a dearth
of case law on the issue but ultimately found that “the limited jurisprudence
falls short of supporting Dollar General’s position that it is the prevailing
party.”4 This Court agrees with the Clerk of Court’s reasoning and adopts it
here.
In addition, the Court finds the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Tunison v.
Continental 	Airlines 	Corp. 	compelling.5 	There, 	the 	jury 	found 	that 	the
1 Doc. 58.
2 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 54.
3 Young v. UOP LLC, No. CV 21-282-SDD-EWD, 2024 WL 3274778, at *1 (M.D. La.
July 2, 2024) (quoting Farmer v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 233 (1964)).
4 Doc. 59-1.
5 Tunison v. Cont’l Airlines Corp., 162 F.3d 1187, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Case 2:23-cv-05873-JTM-JVM Document 61 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
defendant had violated the Air Carrier Access Act in its interaction with the
plaintiff, but it awarded the plaintiff no damages.6 The court held that neither
party was the prevailing party under Rule 54.7 It noted that the defendant
could not be found to be the prevailing party where it had been found to have
violated the Act and had judgment entered against it.8 It held that the
defendant had “cited no case in which a party against whom judgment was
entered was held to be prevailing, and has suggested no justification for such
a treatment.”9 The Fifth Circuit has agreed that courts are not required to
declare a prevailing party in every case.10 “When both sides achieve some
litigation victories on a claim, there may not be a prevailing party.”11
Here, Defendant was found to be at fault and had judgment entered
against it on the issue of fault. Accordingly, the Court finds that it cannot be
said to be the prevailing party.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
6 Id. at 1187.
7 Id. at 1191.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Schlobohm v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 806 F.2d 578, 584 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that
neither party prevailed).
11 Domain Prot., L.L.C. v. Sea Wasp, L.L.C., 23 F.4th 529, 540 (5th Cir. 2022).
Case 2:23-cv-05873-JTM-JVM Document 61 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-05873-JTM-JVM Document 61 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 4