Kloberdanz v. Arpaio et al
Filing
222
ORDER denying 208 Motion for Court Review of Costs Judgment. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/6/16. (JWS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Daniel L. Kloberdanz,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:13-cv-2182 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
(Motion at Docket 208)
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 208, plaintiff Daniel L. Kloberdanz (“Kloberdanz”) moves for judicial
review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs at docket 207. Defendants Robert W. Burghart
(“Burghart”) and Steven H. Carpenter (“Carpenter”) respond at docket 215. Kloberdanz
did not file a reply.
II. BACKGROUND
Kloberdanz filed suit in state court against numerous defendants seeking to
recover damages arising from events which transpired on June 15, 2012. The case
was removed to this court on October 25, 2013. Early in the litigation, Kloberdanz
agreed to the dismissal of his claims against the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors, the five individual Supervisors, and the Maricopa County Attorney, with
each of those parties bearing its own costs and fees.1 The court entered an order
approving the stipulation. 2 In an order at docket 20, the court granted defense requests
to dismiss Kloberdanz’s claims against defendants Arpaio, the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s office, and Maricopa County. The remaining claims were those pled against
Burghart, Carpenter, and Joseph K. Pellino (“Pellino”). Later, the parties stipulated to
dismiss Count Three in its entirety as to all defendants and Count Seven, which was
directed only at Pellino, with each party to bear its own costs and fees.3 The remaining
claims were the subject of a seven-day jury trial in August of 2016. Burghart and
Carpenter were represented by lawyers in the Maricopa County Attorney’s office.
Pellino was represented by Sara Barnes of Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson PC.
The jury returned verdicts in favor of Burghart and Carpenter on Kloberdanz’s
Fourth Amendment Excessive Force claim against them, his only claim against them.
The jury also returned a verdict in favor of Pellino on Kloberdanz’s false arrest claim,
but could not agree on verdicts on Kloberdanz’s other claims against Pellino. A mistrial
was declared as to those claims. They will be litigated in a second trial scheduled for
February 6, 2017.
Subsequent to the trial, counsel for Burghart and Carpenter filed a cost bill
seeking to recover total costs of $13,599.70. 4 Kloberdanz objected at docket 206. The
1
Doc. 5.
2
Doc. 11.
3
Doc. 110. The court approved the parties’ stipulation at docket 112.
4
Doc. 203.
-2-
Clerk ultimately taxed costs against Kloberdanz in the amount of $4,544.05. 5 It is that
decision which Kloberdanz asks the court to review.
III. DISCUSSION
The jury verdict and judgment entered in favor of Burghart and Carpenter show
that they were prevailing parties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) creates a
presumption that costs should be awarded to a prevailing party.6 To overcome the
presumption, “the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded.”7
Kloberdanz first contends that costs should not have been taxed against him
because they were not necessarily incurred by Burghart and Carpenter. Kloberdanz
correctly says that only costs necessarily incurred may be taxed.8 Kloberdanz then
argues that the costs were actually incurred by the Maricopa County Attorney.
Examination of the documents supporting the cost bill shows that all of the costs were
invoiced to the Maricopa County Attorney.9 Burghart and Carpenter do not dispute the
proposition that the costs were incurred by the Maricopa County Attorney: “In this case
the taxable costs were incurred in the defense of Burghart and Carpenter * * * [but they]
were not on the hook for paying the costs as they were being represented by Maricopa
5
Doc. 207.
6
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003).
7
Id. at 945.
8
28 U.S.C. § 1924.
9
Doc. 203 at pp. 2-35. Some of the invoices were sent to individual attorneys who work
in the office of the Maricopa County Attorney.
-3-
County Attorney’s Office through their insurance policy–the Maricopa County SelfInsured Trust.”10
The first issue then is whether the fact that the County Attorney incurred any
necessary costs in defending Burghart and Carpenter means that those costs may not
be taxed. Kloberdanz relies on Murkeldove v. Astrue11 to support his position that the
costs may not be taxed. In Murkeldove, the Fifth Circuit held that an award of fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act was appropriate where the individual claimants
had contingency fee agreements obligating them to pay fees to their counsel. The
Murkeldove court did not consider awards of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) and
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Kloberdanz cites Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc. 12 That case is
also distinguishable. It dealt with the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(5)(A). The case does not address the taxation of costs in favor of a prevailing
party.
The next case cited by Kloberdanz is Trugreen Cos. L.L.C. v. Mower Bros., Inc.13
There, the issue was whether prevailing litigants could recover fees and costs under a
contractual provision and pertinent state statutes. The case does not discuss the
taxation of costs under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
10
Doc. 215 at p. 4.
11
635 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2011).
12
688 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2012).
13
953 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Utah 2013).
-4-
The last case cited by Kloberdanz, Vasquez v. Commissioner,14 is also
distinguishable. It addressed the application of statutory provisions not involved in the
case at bar. It did not address taxation of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) and § 1920.
To be sure, the cases discussed above can be read to suggest that one can
“incur” an expense only if one is personally responsible for paying the expense, but
such a generality is not dispositive here. The complement to § 1920, 28 U.S.C. § 1924,
refers to costs “necessarily incurred,” but it does not say incurred by whom. It is not
obvious that where, as here, costs necessarily incurred are paid by a prevailing parties’
insurer they should not be taxed. If the individual defendant must be personally
responsible for paying the costs, then an award of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) and 28
U.S.C. § 1920 would in some instances turn not on whether a cost was necessarily
incurred, but on whether the prevailing defendant had insurance. In Manor Healthcare
Corp. v. Lomelo,15 the Eleventh Circuit considered whether a prevailing party who was
insured could recover costs paid by the insurer. Noting that it had not “previously
addressed whether a prevailing party to a lawsuit may recover costs paid by a person or
entity not a party to the lawsuit,”16 the federal court cited with approval a decision by the
Florida Supreme Court, Aspen v. Bayless,17 which held that a prevailing party is not
foreclosed from recovering costs when those costs were paid by a third party. The
14
93 T.C.M. 660 (U.S.T.C. 2007).
15
929 F.2d 633 (11th Cir. 1991).
16
Id. at 639.
17
564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1990).
-5-
Lomelo court went on to explain that preventing a prevailing party whose costs were
paid by an insurer from recovering those cost under Rule 54(d) would run afoul of the
presumption that a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs and “would also allow
plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against insured defendants without incurring litigation costs
after losing on the merits.”18
More recently the Ninth Circuit addressed a trial court’s award of costs to a
prevailing defendant in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. 19 As in the case at bar,
the prevailing tort defendant’s costs were paid by its insurer. Echoing Lomelo, the Ninth
Circuit explained that denying the award “punishes a prevailing party for being insured
and violates the provisions and intent of Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which directs the award of costs to a prevailing party. Thus, we hold that
Kan Pacific was entitled to seek an award of costs even though the cost of litigation was
paid by its insurer.”20 In light of Taniguchi, this court concludes that the fact that
Burghart and Carpenter’s costs were paid by its insurer does not render the taxation of
costs by the Clerk erroneous.
As a subset of the argument that the costs were not incurred by Burghart and
Carpenter, Kloberdanz asserts that essentially all costs were allocated to Burghart and
Carpenter, and “not one penny has been allotted to [Pellino].” 21 This hyperbolic
18
929 F.2d at 633.
19
633 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) reversed on other grounds by Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific
Saipan, Ltd., 132 S.Ct. 1997 (2012).
20
633 F.3d at 1220.
21
Doc. 208 at p. 5.
-6-
assertion overlooks the fact that Pellino was represented by Sara Barnes, not the
Maricopa County Attorney. More generally, this contention is adequately rebutted in
Burghart and Carpenter’s response. 22
Next, Kloberdanz argues that,, because the order approving the stipulation which
dismissed his claims against the Maricopa County Attorney provided that each party
would bear its own costs and fees,23 there can be no award of costs relating to the
expenses the County Attorney has incurred in defending Burghart and Carpenter. This
argument overlooks the fact that the stipulation and order in point did not address the
claims against Burghart and Carpenter. Indeed, far from being dismissed by stipulation
early in the litigation, those claims were the subject of a seven-day trial. This argument
is frivolous.
Kloberdanz also argues that, in determining whether to award costs to a
prevailing defendant in a civil rights action, the court should consider the plaintif f’s
financial situation, the size of the award, and whether such an award would chill
litigants’ willingness to seek redress for civil rights abuses. The court agrees that these
matters should be considered. However, Kloberdanz’s argument on these points is not
supported by the record. First, contrary to his bare assertion that he has been
financially “devastated,”24 testimony at trial established that Kloberdanz continues to
work as a lawyer. Second, his argument that “a $14,000 award of costs will be a true
22
Doc. 215 at pp. 7-8.
23
The stipulation is at docket 5, and the order approving it is at docket 11.
24
Doc. 208 at p. 9.
-7-
hardship for him”25 overlooks the fact that the award actually made is only $4,544.05.
Finally, in a case in which a civil rights plaintiff “believes that compensatory damages
should be awarded to him in an amount of no less than one million dollars” 26 and, in
addition, seeks punitive damages, awarding costs of $4,544.05 will not have a chilling
effect.
Finally, Kloberdanz argues that many of the costs are not properly taxable.
However, his memorandum does not focus on the $4,544.05 actually awarded. It is
clear that the points advanced to support this argument relate to the initial request for
an award in the amount of $13,599.70, not the costs actually taxed. For example, the
cost bill filed by Burghart and Carpenter asked for $12,220.30 for transcripts.27 In his
motion Kloberdanz objected to $6,221.25 of the total requested for transcripts,28 but the
Clerk allowed only $3,869.05 for transcripts.29 The court’s review of the costs actually
taxed does not disclose any that were improperly taxed by the Clerk.
25
Id.
26
From plaintiff’s closing argument to the jury; doc. 199 at p. 29, ll. 12-13
27
Doc. 203 at p. 1.
28
Doc. 208 at p. 10.
29
Doc. 207 at p. 2.
-8-
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above the court denies the motion at docket 208 and approves
the Clerk’s taxation of costs in the amount of $4,544.05.
DATED this 6th day of December 2016.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-9-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?