Ulloa et al v. Fancy Farms, Inc.
Filing
120
ORDER granting in part 113 Motion for Taxation of Costs. Plaintiffs are directed to file a new Bill of Costs for $1,224.90 by August 5, 2019,which the Clerk will tax upon filing. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 7/26/2019. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SELSO PALMA ULLOA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:15-cv-2690-T-24 AAS
FANCY FARMS, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs. (Doc. No. 113).
Defendant opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 115). As explained below, the motion is granted in
part.
I. Factual Background
Defendant Fancy Farms produces hand-harvested strawberries for commercial sale. To
obtain a steady workforce for its strawberry operations, beginning with the 2013–14 strawberry
season, Fancy Farms sought to employ workers through the H-2A temporary agricultural
guestworker program. To assist it in obtaining workers through the H-2A program, Fancy Farms
hired Nestor Molina, a principal of All Nations Staffing, and his business partner, Patrick Burns,
as employees on June 20, 2013.
At no time did Fancy Farms authorize Molina or Burns to request recruitment fees from
prospective H-2A workers, or to accept recruitment payments from prospective workers. Fancy
Farms did not, however, contractually forbid Molina, Burns, or their agents from seeking or
receiving recruitment fees from prospective workers, despite federal regulations requiring it to do
so. Plaintiffs (54 foreign laborers who are citizens of Honduras) paid recruitment fees in
amounts between $3,000 and $4,000 to various agents of Molina as a condition of hire with
Fancy Farms.
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs asserted two claims against Fancy Farms: (1) violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), and (2) breach of contract. This Court granted summary judgment in
favor of Fancy Farms on Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim and granted partial summary judgment in favor
of Fancy Farms on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. (Doc. No. 74). Thereafter, the parties
filed a stipulation, in which they agreed that the Court’s summary judgment order resulted in
barring 28 of the 54 plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. (Doc. No. 83). Additionally, the
parties agreed in the stipulation that the Court could resolve the remaining 26 plaintiffs’ breach
of contract claims based on the evidentiary record before it. (Doc. No. 83). As a result, the
Court found in favor of Fancy Farms on all Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. (Doc. No. 95).
Thereafter, Fancy Farms moved for an award of costs as the prevailing party. (Doc. No
97). The Court awarded costs to Fancy Farms in the amount of $2,690.61, which included
$824.90 for Carl Grooms’ (Fancy Farms’ president) deposition. (Doc. No. 98, 99, 104).
Thereafter, Plaintiffs appealed this Court’s rulings, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in
part and vacated in part this Court’s judgment. (Doc. No. 106). Specifically, the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment in favor of Fancy Farms on the FLSA claim. (Doc. No.
106). The Eleventh Circuit also affirmed this Court’s judgment in favor of Fancy Farms as to 43
of the 54 plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. (Doc. No. 106). However, the Eleventh Circuit
2
vacated part of this Court’s judgment to the extent that this Court found that the 11 Remaining
Plaintiffs did not show that their recruitment payments were proximately caused by Fancy Farms’
breach. (Doc. No. 106). The Eleventh Circuit then remanded the case for further proceedings as
to the 11 Remaining Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. (Doc. No. 106).
On remand, this Court concluded that causation existed and directed that judgment be
entered in favor of the 11 Remaining Plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim. (Doc. No. 109).
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to tax costs in their favor.
III. Motion to Tax Costs
Plaintiffs move this Court for an award of $14,513.15 in costs. In reviewing Plaintiffs’
motion for costs, the Court is mindful of the following:
A prevailing party may recover costs as a matter of course unless
otherwise directed by the Court or applicable statute. Congress has
delineated which costs are recoverable under Rule 54(d),
Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court has the discretion to award those costs
specifically enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court, however,
may not tax as costs any items not authorized by statute. When
challenging whether costs are taxable, the losing party bears the
burden of demonstrating that a cost is not taxable, unless the
knowledge
Monelus v. Tocodrian, Inc., 609 F. Supp.2d 1328, 1332-33 (S.D. Fla. 2009)(internal citations
omitted).
Fancy Farms objects to the costs being sought. Accordingly, the Court will analyze each
of the three categories of costs being sought.
3
A. Filing Fee
First, Plaintiffs seek to recover the $400 filing fee for this case. Fancy Farms opposes this
request to the extent that there are 54 plaintiffs in this case, 43 of which lost on both of their
FLSA and breach of contract claims. As such, Fancy Farms argues that the Court should divide
the $400 filing fee by 54 plaintiffs and award the 11 Remaining Plaintiffs their portion of the
filing fee. The Court rejects this argument.
The plaintiffs in this case joined together to file one lawsuit, and pay one filing fee, for
this case. Since the $400 filing would still have been paid if only the 11 Remaining Plaintiffs
had filed suit, the Court awards Plaintiffs the entire $400 filing fee for the 11 Remaining
Plaintiffs that prevailed on their breach of contract claim.
B. Transcripts
Second, Plaintiffs seek to recover the cost of the deposition transcripts in this
case—totaling $9,393.10. The only deposition that was necessarily obtained by Plaintiffs in
order to successful pursue the breach of contract claim was the deposition of Carl Grooms.1 The
Court previously awarded Fancy Farms $824.90 for the cost of taking Grooms’ deposition when
Fancy Farms had been the sole prevailing party in this case. At this time, when both Fancy
Farms and the 11 Remaining Plaintiffs are prevailing parties on different claims, the Court finds
that neither party should be awarded the cost of Grooms’ deposition, as it was necessary for the
1
Depositions were taken of four of the plaintiffs that did not prevail on either the FLSA or
breach of contract claims. Therefore, their depositions were not necessarily obtained by
Plaintiffs for use in this case.
4
claims that each prevailed on. As such, the Court will award Plaintiffs $824.90 for Carl Grooms’
deposition, so the net effect will be that neither side recoups the cost of his deposition.2
C. Interpreter’s Fees and Expenses
Third, Plaintiffs seek to recover $4,720.05 for their interpreter’s fees and expenses
relating to depositions taken in both Tampa and Honduras. Grooms’ deposition occurred in
Tampa, along with the depositions of three other witnesses employed by Fancy Farms. The
interpreter charged a flat daily rate of $600 in connection with the Tampa depositions. Since
only the deposition of Grooms was necessarily obtained by Plaintiffs in order to partially succeed
on the contract claim, only interpreter fees relating to Grooms’ deposition could be recovered.
However, had both sides asked for costs to the extent that they had prevailed, the Court would
not have awarded costs relating to Grooms’ deposition to either party. As such, the Court will
not award Plaintiffs with the interpreter costs relating to Grooms’ (or anyone else’s) deposition.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. No. 113) is GRANTED to the extent that
the Court awards Plaintiffs $1,224.90 in costs, consisting of the $400 filing fee
and $824.90 towards the cost of Grooms’ deposition.
2
The Court notes that the cost of Grooms’ deposition for Plaintiffs exceeds $824.90.
However, the Court awards Plaintiffs $824.90 for his deposition to counter the $824.90 awarded
to Fancy Farms for Grooms’ deposition. Thus, the net effect is that neither party will recoup the
cost of Grooms’ deposition.
5
(2)
Plaintiffs are directed to file a new Bill of Costs for $1,224.90 by August 5, 2019,
which the Clerk will tax upon filing.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of July, 2019.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
6
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?