Meadows v. Knight

Filing 76

ORDER granting 74 Motion to Clarify the Final Order Regarding the Issue of Costs. Within 14 days of this order, defendant Lieutenant Judy Knight may have her costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/19/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00015-PAB-BNB
KENNITH MEADOWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT JUDY KNIGHT,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Clarify the Final Order
Regarding the Issue of Costs [Docket No. 74] filed by defendant Lieutenant Judy
Knight. The Court presided over a two-day trial in this matter from August 20 to August
21, 2012. Docket Nos. 70-72. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
defendant. Docket No. 72-1. On August 23, 2012, the Court entered final judgment in
favor of defendant. Docket No. 73. The final judgment, however, does not address the
issue of costs. See id.
In her motion, defendant requests that the Court clarify the Final Judgment
[Docket No. 73] to indicate whether she is entitled to costs as the prevailing party
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Docket No. 74 at 2. In response, plaintiff argues that
defendant waived the right to seeks costs because she did not file her bill of costs and
contends that the Court should not award defendant her costs because plaintiff is
indigent. Docket No. 75 at 2.

Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “costs – other than
attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).
Generally, a prevailing party may move for costs at any time after the Court enters
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see Hiller v. United States, 2008 WL 4534052, at *4
n.4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) (noting that Rule 54(d)(1) does not set a time limit to
present a bill of costs to the Clerk of the Court); 10A Charles Wright, Arthur Miller &
Mary Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2679 (3d ed. 2010) (noting that the “text of Rule
54(d)(1) does not indicate when the motion for taxation of costs must be made”). Local
Rule 54.1, however, provides that “[e]ach judgment or final order shall indicate which
party or parties are entitled to costs. A bill of costs must be filed on the form provided
by the court within 14 days after the entry of the judgment or final order.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. In this case, because the final judgment does not reference the
award of costs and defendant promptly filed her motion for clarification of costs
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) within fourteen days of the entry of final judgment, the
Court finds that defendant’s motion is timely and complies with the Local Rules. See
Brooks v. Gaenzle, No. 06-cv-01436-CMA-MJW, 2009 WL 4949922, at *5 (D. Colo.
Dec. 15, 2009) (allowing defendant to seek costs because the final order did not
reference the award of costs).
Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny defendant’s motion because he is
indigent. Docket No. 75 at 2. Whether a prevailing party shall be awarded costs is
generally within the sound discretion of the district court. Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms,
Inc., 360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, Rule 54(d)(1) creates “a

2

presumption that the district court will award costs to the prevailing party.” Cantrell v.
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458-59 (10th Cir. 1995). Thus, costs are
typically awarded to the prevailing party and the presumption in favor of awarding costs
is only overcome upon a showing that an award would be inequitable under the
circumstances. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d at 1190. The non-prevailing party has the burden
of establishing that a valid reason exists to deny costs. Id. Moreover, because the
denial of costs is “in the nature of a severe penalty” the district court must provide a
valid reason to deny costs. Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497, 1507 (10th Cir. 1995).
Courts consider the following factors to determine whether to deny costs: (1)
whether the prevailing party was obstructive and acted in bad faith during the course of
litigation, (2) whether only nominal damages are awarded, (3) whether the issues were
close and difficult, (4) whether the costs are unreasonably high or unnecessary, or (5)
whether the non-prevailing party is indigent. Cantrell, 69 F.3d at 459. In this case, the
Court finds that plaintiff has not shown that it would be inequitable to grant an award of
costs in favor of defendant.
First, there is no evidence that defendant engaged in any obstructive bad faith
conduct. See Cantrell, 69 F.3d at 459 (noting that “obstructive conduct” includes acting
“in bad faith during the course of the litigation”). Additionally, although the legal issues
in this case were close, this factor alone is insufficient to penalize defendant and not
award costs. See Rodriguez, 360 F.3d at 1190 (upholding district court decision to
grant defendant its costs although the issues in the case were close). Moreover,
because the Clerk of the Court has yet to tax costs, there is no basis for the Court to

3

determine whether defendant’s requested costs are “unreasonably high or
unnecessary.” Cantrell, 69 F.3d at 459.
Furthermore, given that plaintiff paid the civil filing fee and is not proceeding in
forma pauperis, plaintiff has not shown that his indigence is so severe that it would
constitute an undue hardship to award costs against him. Docket No. 1-2; see A.D. v.
Deere & Co., 229 F.R.D. 189, 194 (D.N.M. 2004) (noting that a plaintiff must prove
indigence); Lewis v. U.F.C.W. Dist. Union Local Two & Employers Pension Fund, 273
F. App’x 765, 768 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that proceeding in a case in forma pauperis
does not preclude the federal court from assessing costs at the conclusion of the case).
Without further information about plaintiff’s financial condition or an award of costs from
the Clerk of Court, a finding that plaintiff cannot afford the costs in this case would be
speculative. Moreover, plaintiff’s present objection is premature because he still has a
right to object to the clerk’s award of costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (noting a party
may seek review of the taxation of costs on a motion served within seven days of the
taxation of costs). Accordingly, because plaintiff does not provide sufficient reasons to
justify penalizing defendant, the Court finds that defendant, as the prevailing party, is
entitled to recover her costs. Klein, 44 F.3d at 1507.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify the Final Order Regarding the Issue of
Costs [Docket No. 74] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that, within 14 days of this order, defendant Lieutenant Judy Knight
may have her costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court.

4

DATED June 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

5