United States Seventh Circuit

In a suit alleging violation of a law preventing discharge of a seaman for refusing to perform duties ordered by his employer if the duties would result in serious injury, denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where a jury could reasonably find that one of the plaintiffs was ordered to engage in activities he deemed unsafe. Denial of defendant's motions for costs is reversed and remanded where: 1) a voluntary dismissal without prejudice renders the opposing party a "prevailing party" for purposes of recovering costs; and 2) the district court abused its discretion by not explaining its decision to deny defendant's motion to compel payment of a deposed expert's fees.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/09/2007
• Decided 04/10/2007
• Published 04/10/2007

Judges

• FLAUM, Circuit Judge., Before BAUER, FLAUM, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Christopher W. Dysart (argued), Dysart Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Gary T. Sacks (argued), Goldstein & Price, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.