Ulloa et al v. Fancy Farms, Inc.

Filing 99

ORDER granting 97 Motion to tax costs. Defendant is directed to file a new Bill of Costs for $2,690.61 by February 16, 2018, which the Clerk will tax upon filing. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/9/2018. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SELSO PALMA ULLOA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 8:15-cv-2690-T-24 AAS
v.
FANCY FARMS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. (Doc. No. 97).
Plaintiffs have not filed a response in opposition, and as such, the Court deems the motion to be
unopposed. As explained below, the motion is granted.
I. Background
This case involved claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and
breach of contract due to Defendant’s failure to contractually forbid All Nations Staffing, Nestor
Molina, Patrick Burns, and their agents from seeking or receiving recruitment payments from
prospective foreign labor employees, such as Plaintiffs. The Court granted summary judgment
in favor of Defendant on the FLSA claim (Doc. No. 74) and granted judgment in favor of
Defendant on the breach of contract claim (Doc. No. 95). This motion to tax costs followed.
II. Motion for Costs
Defendant moves this Court for an award of $2,663.81 in costs. In reviewing
Defendant’s 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 regarding the proposed cost is within the exclusive
knowledge of the prevailing party.
Monelus v. Tocodrian, Inc., 609 F. Supp.2d 1328, 1332-33 (S.D. Fla. 2009)(internal citations
omitted).
Plaintiffs have not filed a response brief objecting to any of the costs. The Court has
reviewed the costs being sought and finds them to be allowable under § 1920, with the following
minor corrections.
In its motion, Defendant seeks two types of costs: (1) costs for deposition transcripts, and
(2) costs for photocopies. With respect to transcript costs, Defendant seeks costs for deposition
transcripts of witnesses, which total $2,098.71 (not the $2,100.71 asserted in the proposed Bill of
Costs—Doc. No. 98). With respect to photocopies, Defendant seeks reimbursement for 5,631
pages of photocopies at $0.10 per page. Defendant also seeks costs in the amount of $28.80 for
the hearing transcript it obtained (Doc. No. 97-1, p. 11), and this amount appears not to be
included in the amount of costs sought.
Thus, with the $2 decrease in transcript costs and the $28.80 increase for the hearing
transcript, it appears that Defendant is actually seeking $2,690.61 in costs ($2,127.51 for
transcripts and $563.10 for photocopies). Upon consideration, the Court finds that this amount is
reasonable and should be awarded.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs
(Doc. No. 97) is GRANTED. Defendant is directed to file a new Bill of Costs for $2,690.61 by
2

February 16, 2018, which the Clerk will tax upon filing.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 9th day of February, 2018.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

3