Ah. Well, under
Rule 54, Skordas still has the option to pursue fees, so we should probably begin Venmoing dollars to the judge, just in case.
Generally, Rule 54 fee motions are used where there is a statute that specifically awards fees to the prevailing party. A lot of consumer protection statutes do that. So, if you win summary judgement against a debt collector, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., provides that fees shall be awarded. The proper way of getting those fees is a Rule 54 motion.
Here, it's a lot more loosey-goosey. Russ just generally fucked up by talking shit about Skordas in a public filing. That's governed more by Rule 11, the general sanctions rule. There are some specific notice procedures that have to be followed to get fees under Rule 11. Basically, you have to serve (but not file) a motion and a request that the bad filing be withdrawn. We wouldn't know if Skordas has done that.
There are other strange provisions and the "inherent power of the Court" that can award fees, but judges don't like to use them.
Normally in a case like this, a federal judge will consider that getting the bullshit case dismissed is remedy enough. Here, though, Judge Campbell
did use the phrase "wholly improper", which might be a signal she is willing to consider a sanctions motion.
Whether to pursue that motion is a strategic choice that Skordas and Dear Leader need to make. I trust that Skordas has a good feeling for how the Utah federal bench leans and will give Dear Leader good advice about whether this is worth doing or not.