Hite v. Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER: Defendant's Proposed Bill of Costs 40 is DENIED without prejudice. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/28/2014. (CH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOEZETTE HITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2277-T-33AEP

HILL DERMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court in consideration of
Defendant Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc.’s Proposed Bill of Costs
(Doc. # 40), filed on March 11, 2014.

For the reasons that

follow, the Court denies the Proposed Bill of Costs without
prejudice.

Hill Dermaceuticals may re-file the Proposed Bill

of Costs upon resolution of the appeal, if appropriate.
Discussion
On

February

25,

2014,

the

Court

granted

Dermaceuticals’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Hill

(Doc. # 38).

Also on that date, the Clerk entered a Judgment in favor of
Hill

Dermaceuticals

(Doc. # 39).

and

against

Plaintiff

Joezette

Hite.

On March 11, 2014, Hill Dermaceuticals filed

its Proposed Bill of Costs.

(Doc. # 40).

Subsequently, on

March 21, 2014, Hite filed a Notice of Appeal indicating

Hite’s intent to appeal the Court’s Summary Judgment Order
and corresponding Judgment.

(Doc. # 41).

As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal
divests a district court of jurisdiction with respect to any
matters involved in the appeal.

Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I.

DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that “[t]he filing of an appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the
court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”)
(internal citations omitted).
Resolving Hill Dermaceuticals’ Proposed Bill of Costs
while the present appeal remains pending would require the
Court to engage in piecemeal adjudication of costs, as the
Court would be asked to repeat the procedure following the
appeal.

See Bowers v. Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd.,

No. 6:03-cv-985-ORL-18JGG, 2005 WL 1243745, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
May

19,

2005).

immediate

Furthermore,

resolution

of

the

the

Court

finds

that

the

collateral

issue

of

Hill

Dermaceuticals’ Proposed Bill of Costs is unlikely to assist
the

Court

of

Appeals.

Thus,

the

Court

denies

Hill

Dermaceuticals’ Proposed Bill of Costs without prejudice.

2

Hill Dermaceuticals may re-file the Proposed Bill of Costs
after resolution of the appeal, if appropriate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant’s Proposed Bill of Costs is DENIED without
prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
28th day of March, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

3