Hand et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court is Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Bill of Costs (Doc. 186 ). The Bill of Costs is now ripe for review. For the reasons stated within, the Court awards Defendant the full $17,308.36 requested. The Court ORDERS the award of costs in this amount. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/2/2022. (MEB2)

FILED
2022 Aug-02 PM 04:33
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
ALEX HAND & EMILY
DRUMMOND-HAND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

6:19-cv-00453-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Bill of Costs. (Doc.
186.) The Bill of Costs is now ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court ORDERS an award of costs of $17,308.36.
I.

BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Alex Hand and Emily Drummond-Hand

(collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Allstate Insurance Company. On March
15, 2019, Defendant removed the case to federal court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs asserted
two claims against Defendant for bad faith and breach of contract. (See doc. 18.) The
case was presented before a jury, which found in favor of Defendant on all claims.
(Doc. 87.) The Court taxed costs to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 90.) On July 19, 2022,
Page 1 of 5

Defendant filed its Bill of Costs. (Doc. 91.) Plaintiffs then objected to the
Defendant’s Bill of Costs. (Doc. 92.)

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[u]nless a

federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than
attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1). “Under Rule 54(d), there is a strong presumption that the prevailing party
will be awarded costs.” Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007).
Congress has enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (“§ 1920”), which defines the term “costs”
in Rule 54(d). Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 565, 132 S. Ct. 1997,
182 L. Ed. 2d 903 (2012).
Section 1920 “now embodies Congress’ considered choice as to the kinds of
expenses that a federal court may tax as costs against the losing party.” Crawford
Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440, 107 S. Ct. 2494, 96 L. Ed. 2d 385
(1987). It states:
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the
following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or
electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the
case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees
for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket
fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court
Page 2 of 5

appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees,
expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section
1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920. Although the Court has discretion to determine the appropriate
award of costs, it abuses that discretion if it awards costs in excess of the costs
allowed by § 1920. Maris Distributing Co. v. Anheuser—Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d 1207,
1225 (11th Cir. 2002).
II.

DISCUSSION
Defendant’s Bill of Costs requested a total of $17,609.91. Plaintiff did not

object to any specific cost requested by Defendant. Instead, Plaintiffs asks that “the
Defendant’s Bill of Costs be denied; or, in the alternative, substantially reduced.”
(Doc. 92 at 1.) In support, Plaintiffs assert that because Defendant violated the
“clean hands” doctrine, Plaintiffs should not have to pay Defendant’s Bill of Costs.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant had unclean hands when Defendant breached its
contract by delaying a supplemental payment of roughly $24,000. Plaintiffs further
argue that by surviving summary judgment on bad faith, the Plaintiffs established
that they were entitled to a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim related
to the two-year late payment on undisputed funds. While Defendant agreed in Court
that the payment should have been made sooner, the Court does not find that this
delayed payment warrants Plaintiffs being relieved of paying costs. Ultimately, a jury
Page 3 of 5

unanimously found that: (1) Defendant did not breach any contract; (2) Plaintiffs
made material misrepresentations to Defendant; and (3) Defendant did not commit
bad faith. (Doc. 91.) In finding that Defendant did not commit any bad faith, the jury
found that there was no “conscious intent to injure” Plaintiffs. See Davis v. Cotton
States Mut. Ins. Co. v. White, 604 So. 2d 354, 359 (Ala. 1992). As such, Plaintiffs’
request is due to be denied.
Further, considering the verdict of the jury, it is clear that the individual
plaintiffs were found to have unclean hands in that they made material
misrepresentations to Defendant. Thus, even if the Court did find that Defendant
had unclean hands, Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs state that “the
‘clean hands’ doctrine operates to deny recovery to one who is ‘tainted with
inequitableness.’” (Doc. 92 at 2.) The Court agrees. The evidence showed that over
nineteen months, Plaintiffs were paid over $107,000 in “Additional Living
Expenses” in the form of power bills, lawncare bills, roughly in $15,000 in laundry
services, and monthly installments of $4,500 to reimburse amounts allegedly paid to
Emily Drummond-Hand’s mother for rent on a three-bedroom, two-bathroom
house in Jasper, Alabama. A jury finding that Plaintiffs made material
misrepresentations to Defendant and that Defendant did not act in bad faith, shows
that Plaintiffs did not come before the Court with clean hands. As a result, Plaintiffs’
Page 4 of 5

equity argument fails, and they are due to be ordered to pay Defendant’s Bill of
Costs.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court awards Defendant the full $17,308.36

requested. The Court ORDERS the award of costs in this amount.
DONE and ORDERED on August 2, 2022.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
206888

Page 5 of 5