Mt. Hebron District Missionary Baptist Association of AL, Inc. v. The Hartford Company et al

Filing 176

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that Dft Alexander's 166 objections to the Plf's bill of costs are SUSTAINED, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/26/2020. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
MT. HEBRON DISTRICT MISSIONARY
BAPTIST ASSOCIATION OF ALABAMA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
v.
LANDON ALEXANDER, SR.,
Third-Party Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:16-cv-658-ECM
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On November 5, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment as it related to Sentinel Insurance Company’s (“Sentinel”) interpleader action but
denied summary judgment on all other claims. (Doc. 148). On March 31, 2020, the Court
granted the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining claims
against Defendants Sentinel and Landon Alexander, Sr. (“Alexander”). (Doc. 163). The
Court entered final judgment on March 31, 2020, in favor of the Plaintiff on the interpleader
action and awarded the Plaintiff the interpleaded funds. The Court also taxed costs against
Alexander.
On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a bill of costs seeking $2,246.42. (Doc. 165).
On April 14, 2020, Alexander filed objections to the Plaintiff’s bill of costs, asserting that

the Plaintiff was not entitled to costs as it “is not the disinterested interpleader.” (Id. at 1).
The Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order directing it to show cause why the
objections should not be sustained.
“In an interpleader action, costs and attorney’s fees are generally awarded, in the
discretion of the court, to the plaintiff who initiates the interpleader as a mere disinterested
stake holder.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 781 F.2d 1494, 1497 (11th Cir. 1986).
Moreover, “[t]he usual practice is to tax the costs and fees against the interpleader fund,
although the court may tax the losing claimant directly when [his] conduct justifies doing
so.” Id. at 1498. In this case, the Plaintiff is not the interpleader nor is it a disinterested
stake holder.
In addition, the Plaintiff has offered no reason why costs should be taxed against
Alexander as the losing claimant. Because Mt. Hebron was not the interpleader plaintiff,
the Court dismissed Mt. Hebron’s claims against Alexander, and Mt. Hebron offers no
reason why it is entitled to costs, the Court concludes that Alexander’s objections to Mt.
Hebron’s bill of costs are due to be sustained.
Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Alexander’s objections to the Plaintiff’s bill of costs are
SUSTAINED.
DONE this 26th day of October, 2020.

/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE