Levin et al v. Palm Beach County et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs 107 . Signed by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg on 12/14/2018. See attached document for full details. (bkd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-CV-80301-ROSENBERG/REINHART
ROBERT S. LEVIN & JOYCE
V. LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 107]. The
Motion has been fully briefed.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
On November 2, 2017, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
Plaintiffs appealed. On September 26, 2018, the appellate court affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 54 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Defendants are entitled to the recovery
of their costs defending this action. Defendants seek recovery of filing fees, deposition costs,
subpoena costs, and copying fees. Each of these categories of costs is recoverable. Id. Defendants
seek $5,331.55 in total, and Defendants’ request is supported by detailed documentation.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that costs should not be taxed because of “Defendants
purposeful abuse of the discovery process.” The Court previously rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that
Defendants abused the discovery process and the Court’s decision has been affirmed on
appeal—the Court rejects this argument as unpersuasive. Plaintiffs also argue that costs should not
be taxed because they are pro se. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that pro se status is a
1 The Court granted the parties the opportunity to file amended argument or additional argument subsequent to the
appellate court’s affirmance of this case; no party elected to amend the briefing before the Court.

valid ground to decline to impose costs, Plaintiff Robert Levin is a trained lawyer who has litigated
other cases in the past and who works for a company named Landmark Legal Foundation—this
argument is rejected as unpersuasive. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that certain costs were not incurred
by Defendants for the purpose of litigation. The Court does not agree for all of the reasons set forth
in Defendants’ Reply—Defendants’ costs were necessary and were incurred for the purpose of
litigating this action.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion
for Bill of Costs [DE 114] is GRANTED and Defendants are awarded $5,331.55 in costs.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 14th day of
December, 2018.

________________________________
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

2