Rogers v. South Star Logistics, Inc., et al.

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf's 116 MOTION for cost in the amount of $4,768.23 is GRANTED in accordance with Rule 54(d) of the FRCP and 28 USC 1920; (2) plf's 138 MOTION to Tax Interest on Judg ment is GRANTED; interest on the judgment will be assessed in accordance with the rate described in 28 USC 1961; (3) execution may issue in the amount of $500,000, plus costs and post-judgment interest. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/27/16. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
JIMMIE ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH STAR LOGISTICS, INC.
and SURINDER SINGH GILL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-179-WHA-WC
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This cause comes before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Cost and Attached Bill of
Cost, (Doc. # 116), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Interest on Judgment, (Doc. # 138).
In March 2014, Plaintiff Jimmie Rogers sued Defendants South Star Logistics, Inc. and
Surinder Singh Gill for negligent driving resulting in a traffic accident. On June 9, 2015, a jury
returned a verdict in the Plaintiff’s favor and awarded damages in the amount of $500,000. (Doc.
# 112). Judgement was entered upon the verdict on June 10, 2015 with costs taxed against the
Defendants. (Doc. # 112).
Afterwards, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or
Alternatively, Motion for New Trial. (Doc. # 120). In addition, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay
Execution of Judgment. Id.
Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Cost, seeking an order taxing costs in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1920, (Doc. # 116), but later expressly stated no objection to Defendants’
Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, Motion for New Trial, and Motion to
Stay Execution of Judgment. (Doc. # 124).
The court denied Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or
Alternatively, Motion for New Trial. However, because Plaintiff expressly stated no objection to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment or the waiver of the bond requirement, and
because “defense counsel . . . represented, as officers of the court, that the policy limits are
sufficient to cover the judgment and any interest in full,” the court granted Defendants’ Motion
for Stay of Execution of Judgment, pending disposition of Defendants’ post-trial motions on
appeal. (Doc. # 128).
On October 13, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion,
affirmed this court’s denial of Defendants’ post-trial motions. (Doc. # 137).
Plaintiff, subsequently, filed a Motion to tax interest on his $500,000 damages award as
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)(b). (Doc. # 138).
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motions are due to be GRANTED.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Costs
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute provides
otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
Congress has provided six (6) categories of expenses which may be taxed as costs under Rule 54,
including:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic
transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily
obtained for use in the case;

2

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Cost and Attached Bill of Cost, seeking to recover: (A) “fees
paid to the Clerk in the amount of $400 for the filing of the complaint in this matter;” (B) “costs
of fees paid to ‘court reporter’ for all or any part of the stenographic transcript . . . [which]
includes the costs of deposition transcripts . . . the videotaped charges for the videographer for
witnesses;” and (C) “$350 for printing cost incurred by the [Plaintiff’s] firm . . . [which]
Plaintiff’s counsel believes . . . is a reasonable cost for printing and copies of matters that are
related to this case.” (Doc. # 116). All told, Plaintiff requests totaled $4,768.23 in costs.
Attached to his request, Plaintiff’s counsel attached an affidavit attesting that he has
personal knowledge of the facts stated in Plaintiff’s Motion and included receipts for all of the
requests. (Doc. # 116-1–4); See 28 U.S.C. § 1924 (“Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party
claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by
his duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and
has been necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for which fees have been charged
were actually and necessarily performed.”)
The Defendants acknowledged the claim of $4,768.23 in costs in moving to waive bond
requirements. (Doc. # 120).
Accordingly, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Cost and Attached Bill of
Cost, (Doc. # 116), is due to be GRANTED.
B. Interest
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Tax Interest on Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
Section 1961(a) provides in relevant part:

3

“Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case
recovered in a district court. . . . Such interest shall be calculated
from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the
weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, for calendar week preceding[] the date of the judgment.
Postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the entry of judgment. See Kaiser Aluminum &
Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835 (1990). Defendants acknowledged that this interest
would be due in the event their appeal was unsuccessful. (Doc. # 120).
In this case, judgment was entered on June 10, 2015. (Doc. # 112). Accordingly,
postjudgment interest accrues from that date in accordance with the rate described in § 1961.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Interest on the Judgment is due to be GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Cost in the amount of $4,768.23, (Doc. # 116), is GRANTED in
accordance with Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §
1920.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Interest on Judgment, (Doc. # 138), is GRANTED. Interest on
the judgment will be assessed in accordance with the rate described in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
3. Execution may issue in the amount of $500,000, plus costs and post-judgment interest.

Done this 27th day of October, 2016.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4