MICHAILIDOU v. EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARIA MICHALIDOU 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:23-cv-00352-JAW
v. 	)
)
)
EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER, 	)
et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
TAXATION OF COSTS
After Final Judgment (ECF No. 79) entered on October 28, 2025, Defendants
filed their Bill of Costs (ECF No. 80), which seeks costs totaling $3,465.49. 	Plaintiff
filed her Opposition (ECF No. 81) to this Bill arguing it is untimely and that
Defendants were not in fact the prevailing party. 	For reasons briefly explained
herein, the Clerk determines these arguments are without merit and Defendant is
entitled to their claimed costs.
On 	the 	question of 	timeliness, Defendants filed their Bill of 	Costs on
December 17, 2025. 	This filing was within 30 days of expiration of the time for filing
an appeal of the Final Judgment (ECF No. 79). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(1)(A) (requiring
a notice of appeal to be filed “within 30 days of entry of judgment”) & D. Me. L. R.
54.3(b)(1) (“If a timely appeal is not filed, a bill of costs must be filed within 30 days
of the expiration of the time for filing an appeal.”) To the extent that Plaintiff asserts
that the time for filing the bill of costs began to run upon entry of the Court’s entry
of the Order on Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75), this fails to account for
Case 1:23-cv-00352-JAW Document 82 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
the requirement that judgment enter as a separate document to begin the 30-day
clock for a civil case appeal.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P 58(a) & Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7). 	In
short, the Clerk finds the Bill of Costs was timely filed based on the date of the
operative Final Judgment.
Plaintiff next asserts that Defendants are not a prevailing party. 	Rather, in
light of Defendants’ voluntary dismissal of a counterclaim, Plaintiff claims the
resolution of this case is analogous to Royal Palm Props., LLC v. Pink Palm Props.,
LLC, 38 F.4th 1372 (11th Cir. 2022). In Royal Palm, a trademark infringement case,
the Eleventh Circuit held that the case had resolved in a “tie,” such that there was
no prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. 	Id. at 1382. 	Here,
there is no tie. 	Rather, the Court initially dismissed a breach of contract claim
against a single individual defendant. See generally Michailidou v. E. Maine Med.
Ctr., No. 1:23-CV-00352-JAW, 2024 WL 3553263 (D. Me. July 26, 2024). 	Then, the
Court granted summary 	judgment in 	favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s
remaining claims. 	See Michailidou v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., No. 1:23-CV-00352-JAW,
2025 WL 2821371, at *54 (D. Me. Oct. 3, 2025). 	These substantive rulings on the
merits makes Defendants the prevailing party. See, e.g., Hoeller v. Eaton Corp., 149
F.3d 621, 626 (7th Cir. 1998) (affirming that employer defendant who was granted
summary judgment was the prevailing party). The subsequent voluntary dismissal
1 An initial judgment entered on this case on October 6, 2025. See ECF No. 76. This judgment was
thereafter vacated on October 28, 2026, as part of the Court’s resolution of the Consent Motion to
Dismiss Counterclaim (ECF No. 77), resulting in the entry of an amended Final Judgment, dated
October 28, 2025. This judgment accounts for the unopposed voluntary dismissal of Defendants’
counterclaim.
Case 1:23-cv-00352-JAW Document 82 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
without prejudice of Defendant’s counterclaim—with Plaintiff’s consent, does not
change the prevailing party determination. 	See, e.g., 10 C HARLES A LAN W RIGHT,
A RTHUR MILLER & MARY K AY K ANE , FED. PRAC . & PROC . C IV . § 2667 (4th ed.)
(collecting cases finding that a dismissal of a claim without prejudice does not make
the beneficiary of that dismissal a “prevailing party” because they remain potentially
subject to liability).
Turning to the amount of Defendants’ request, the Clerk, having made an
independent review of the supporting documentation, concludes that Defendants
claim costs for fees of the clerk and fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for use
in the case, which are allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Therefore, the Clerk of Court
hereby taxes the claimed costs in favor of Defendants in the amount of three thousand
four hundred sixty-five and forty-nine cents ($3,465.49).
/s/ Jennifer P. Lyons
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Dated this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 1:23-cv-00352-JAW Document 82 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>