Shew et al v. Horvath

Filing 59

ORDER: Defendant William Horvath's Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. # 57 ) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/2/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RICKEY SHEW and FRANCES SHEW,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 8:16-cv-766-T-33JSS

WILLIAM HORVATH,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
William Horvath’s Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. # 57), filed
on May 1, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
the Proposed Bill of Costs without prejudice. Horvath may refile the Proposed Bill of Costs upon resolution of the appeal,
if appropriate.
Discussion
On April 19, 2017, the Court granted Horvath’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiffs Rickey and Frances
Shew’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 55). The
Clerk entered judgment in favor of Horvath and against the
Shews on April 20, 2017, and thereafter closed the case. (Doc.
# 56). Subsequently, Horvath filed his Proposed Bill of Costs.

1

(Doc. # 57). Then, on May 2, 2017, the Shews filed a Notice
of Appeal. (Doc. # 58).
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 Horvath’s 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.” Hite
v. Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-2277-T-33AEP, 2014
WL 1292889, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2014). Furthermore,
immediate resolution of the collateral issue of Horvath’s
Proposed Bill of Costs is unlikely to assist the Court of
Appeals. Id. Thus, the Court denies Horvath’s Proposed Bill
of Costs without prejudice. Horvath may re-file the Proposed
Bill

of

Costs

after

the

resolution

appropriate.
2

of

the

appeal,

if

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant William Horvath’s Proposed Bill of Costs (Doc.
# 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd
day of May, 2017.

3