The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to award $17,349.61 in litigation costs to the City of Riviera Beach, Florida, in the latest chapter of a protracted legal battle with activist Fane Lozman.
In a brief per curiam opinion filed Feb. 4, the three-judge panel rejected Lozman's argument that the city was not entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) because the underlying case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of ripeness rather than on the merits.
The dispute stems from an earlier federal lawsuit filed by Lozman against Riviera Beach in 2022. That case was initially dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically because Lozman's claims were not ripe for adjudication.
Lozman appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit, which in 2024 vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of ripeness. The Supreme Court later denied Lozman's petition for certiorari in 2025.
Following the remand, Riviera Beach filed a bill of costs seeking $17,349.61 for various litigation expenses incurred during the proceedings. The requested costs included deposition expenses, copies and transcripts of depositions, service of subpoenas, and copies of hearings and other court proceedings.
Lozman objected to the cost award, contending that because the district court dismissed his case without prejudice for lack of ripeness rather than issuing a judgment on the merits, the city had not obtained a "preclusive judgment" and therefore was not a "prevailing party" entitled to recover costs under Rule 54(d).
Under Federal Rule 54(d)(1), costs are generally awarded to the prevailing party unless a federal statute, court rule, or court order provides otherwise. The rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the successful litigant, though courts retain discretion in determining what constitutes a prevailing party.
Lozman's argument focused on the distinction between dismissals with and without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice typically means the plaintiff can refile the same claims, while a dismissal with prejudice bars future litigation on the same grounds. Lozman contended that because his case was dismissed without prejudice, the city had not achieved a final, preclusive victory entitling it to costs.
However, the Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Chief Judge William Pryor and Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher and Kevin Newsom, disagreed with Lozman's interpretation. The court's brief opinion affirmed the district court's cost award without extensive analysis, suggesting the panel viewed the legal question as straightforward.
The decision represents the latest development in what has become a lengthy series of legal disputes between Lozman and the South Florida municipality. Lozman, a well-known activist and frequent litigant, has previously taken legal action against various government entities on issues ranging from property rights to First Amendment violations.
The case highlights important questions about when defendants in federal litigation are entitled to recover their costs, particularly in cases that are dismissed on procedural grounds rather than substantive merits. While Rule 54(d) generally favors cost recovery for prevailing parties, the boundaries of what constitutes "prevailing" can be complex when cases are resolved without reaching the underlying legal issues.
The court's affirmance of the cost award suggests that defendants who successfully defend against federal lawsuits may be entitled to cost recovery even when the case is dismissed on ripeness or other jurisdictional grounds, rather than through a favorable ruling on the substantive claims.
For Riviera Beach, the decision provides some measure of compensation for the legal expenses incurred in defending against Lozman's lawsuit. The awarded costs of over $17,000 represent a portion of the city's total litigation expenses, as Rule 54(d) allows recovery of only certain categories of costs and does not include attorney fees unless specifically authorized by statute or contract.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to potential litigants that unsuccessful federal lawsuits can result in financial consequences beyond simply losing the case. Plaintiffs who file cases that are ultimately dismissed may face liability for the defendant's costs, creating an additional incentive to carefully evaluate the strength and timing of potential legal claims before filing suit.
The decision is not designated for publication, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases but may be cited as persuasive authority in similar disputes involving cost awards following dismissals without prejudice.