Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC et al

Filing 118

OPINION AND ORDER vacating 61 Amended Bill of Costs; overruling in part and sustaining in part 114 Objections; granting in part and denying in part 113 Motion for Taxation of Costs. The Clerk shall tax costs in the amount of $528.00 against MAC Contractors only by executing the corrected Second Amended Bill of Costs attached to the Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/20/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Second Amended Bill of Costs) (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SOUTHERN-OWNERS
COMPANY,

INSURANCE

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-21-FtM-29MRM

MAC CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA,
LLC,
PAUL
S.
DOPPELT,
Trustee of Paul S. Doppelt
Revocable
Trust
dated
12/08/90, and DEBORAH A.
DOPPELT, Trustee of Deborah
A. Doppelt Revocable Trust
dated 12/08/90,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Second
Motion for Costs (Doc. #113) filed on February 11, 2020.

Defendant

MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC (MAC Contractors) filed Objections
(Doc. #114) to the motion on February 25, 2020.

Plaintiff seeks

$902 in taxable costs, while defendant MAC Contractors asserts
only $219 may properly be taxed against it.
Under Rule 54(d), “costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be
allowed to the prevailing party.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

The

Court finds that plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case,
that there is no reason not to tax appropriate costs in its favor,
and that plaintiff is entitled to the costs authorized under 28

U.S.C. § 1920.

Plaintiff seeks to tax $902.00 in costs, consisting

of $400 for the court’s filing fee, $295.00 for service of summons
costs, and $207.00 for printing expenses (828 pages at $.25 per
page).

MAC Contractors objects to parts of each component of

these requested costs.
When imposing costs against multiple non-prevailing parties,
“the presumptive rule is joint and several liability unless it is
clear that one or more of the losing parties is responsible for a
disproportionate share of the costs.”

Anderson v. Griffin, 397

F.3d 515, 522–23 (7th Cir. 2005)(citations omitted).

“Ordinarily

when parties are jointly and severally liable, it means that each
party is fully liable, subject to the constraint that the claimant
cannot recover more than his total entitlement.”

Id. at 523.

The

district court has the discretionary authority to apportion the
costs between losing parties if the losing party carries its burden
of persuasion.

In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449,

469 (3d Cir. 2000), as amended (Sept. 15, 2000)(citations omitted).
“It is within the Court's discretionary power to apportion taxable
costs among parties.”

Friends of Everglades v. S. Florida Water

Mgmt. Dist., 865 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1171 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citation
omitted).

The

Eleventh

Circuit

seems

to

discretionary authority to apportion costs.
Retarded

Citizens

v.

McDaniel,

855

- 2 -

F.2d

794,

recognize

the

Georgia Ass'n of
800

(11th

Cir.

1988)(“If equitable considerations militated against an award of
costs vis-a-vis either losing party, they were due to be addressed
through

the

district

court's

discretionary

power

to

deny

or

apportion costs”) (citations omitted).
Defendant Mac Contractors’ objections to these amounts are
resolved as follows:
(1)

Court Filing Fee

MAC

Contractors

asserts

that

because

there

are

three

defendants in the case, the $400 filing fee should be split between
them, resulting in a taxable cost of only $133.34 as to MAC
Contractors.

The Court disagrees.

The relief sought by plaintiff in this case was a declaration
as to whether insurance coverage existed and whether plaintiff
owed a duty to defend MAC Contractors in a suit filed by the
Doppelts.

The

Doppelts

were

obviously

not

parties

to

the

insurance policy between plaintiff and MAC Contractors, although
they had an interest in having their claims covered by insurance.
The Court’s $400 filing fee is a flat fee, and not dependent on
the number of defendants sued.

The Court finds no reason to

exercise its discretionary authority to apportion the filing fee.
The Court will tax the entire filing fee of $400 against MAC
Contractors.

- 3 -

(2)

Service of Process Costs

The cost of service of process on MAC Contractors was $59.00.
The cost for service of process on the other two defendants totaled
$236.00.

MAC Contractors agrees that it may be assessed the $59.00

cost of service upon it, but objects to the $236.00 incurred by
plaintiff for service upon the co-defendants.
The Court agrees with MAC Contractors, and in the exercise of
its discretion declines to tax the cost of service upon the other
defendants in this case solely upon MAC Contractors.

Plaintiff

chose the number of defendants to sue, and MAC Contractors should
not be individually responsible for the increased cost of service
of the additional parties.

Therefore, the Court will tax $59.00

for the cost of service upon MAC Contractors, but not the cost of
service of process on the other defendants.
(3)

Copying Costs

It appears that the copying costs relate to copying the items
to be served upon defendants by the process server.

“A summons

must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is
responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the
time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to
the person who makes service.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1).

Copying

costs of $138.00 are attributed to copying the documents to be
served

on

the

co-defendants.

Having

- 4 -

disallowed

the

cost

of

service of process on the co-defendants, the Court again exercises
it discretion and will not tax the copying costs associated with
service of process on the co-defendants.
The

Court

will

tax

the

reasonable

documents served on MAC Contractors.

costs

of

copying

the

MAC Contractors asserts that

$.25 per page copying charge is excessive, asserting a reasonable
market rate for copies of between $.10 and $.15 per page.

MAC

Contractors relies upon an eight year old Report and Recommendation
stating:

“Within the Middle District, and the Eleventh Circuit

generally, there is broad consensus that the reasonable market
rate for copies is $.10 to $.15 cents.”

Perkins v. Tolen, No.

3:10-CV-851-J-37TEM, 2012 WL 3244512, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 13,
2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:10-CV-851-J-37TEM,
2012 WL 3244688 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2012).

Today, if plaintiff had

the Clerk of the Court copy the documents for service, it would be
charged $.50 per page.

The Court finds $.25 per page not to be

excessive, and will tax the $69.00 attributable to MAC Contractors.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Amended Bill of Costs (Doc. #61) is vacated.
2. The

Objections

(Doc.

#114)

sustained in part.

- 5 -

are

overruled

in

part

and

3. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Costs (Doc. #113) is GRANTED
in part and denied in part.
4. The Clerk shall tax costs in the amount of $528.00 against
MAC Contractors only by executing the corrected Second
Amended Bill of Costs attached to the Order.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of March, 2020.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 6 -

20th

day