Ojeda-Sanchez et al v. Bland Farms, LLC et al
Filing
350
ORDERED that Bland has 7 days from the date of this Order to file specific itemized objections to plaintiffs' Bill of Costs. Plaintiffs are Ordered to submit their response within 7 days of Bland's filing. re 340 Bill of Costs, filed by David Ojeda-Sanchez. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 9/27/11. (wwp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
DAVID OJEDA SANCHEZ, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
6:08-cv-96
BLAND FARMS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
On July 18, 2011, the Court entered
judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount
of thirteen thousand eighty dollars and
eighteen cents ($13,080.18). See Doc. 339.
On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their Bill of
Costs, seeking an award of $20,458.42. See
Doc. 340. On August 17, 2011, the clerk
taxed $20,458.42 in costs and fees against
Defendant Bland Farms, LLC (“Bland”).
See Doc. 342. Before the Court is Bland’s
“Notice of Appeal from Clerk’s Taxation of
Costs” (“Appeal of Taxation of Costs”) filed
on August 22, 2011. See Doc. 344.
“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or
a court order provides otherwise, costs—
other than attorney’s fees—should be
allowed to the prevailing party. . . . The
clerk may tax costs on 14 days’ notice. On
motion served within the next 7 days, the
court may review the clerk’s action.” F ED.
R. C IV. P. 54(d)(1).
At the outset, the Court notes that
Bland’s appeal is timely as Bland filed its
appeal five days after the clerk’s taxing of
costs. See Docs. 342; 344.
In essence, Bland argues that because
Plaintiffs were only partially successful on
the merits and recovered a lesser amount in
damages than the costs incurred, the Court
should leave both parties to bear their own
costs. See Doc. 344 at 3. In the alternative,
Bland argues that if costs are taxed against
it, then costs should be apportioned
according to the percentage of claims in
which Plaintiffs prevailed. Id. Notably,
Bland does not contest any of the specific
items listed in Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs. See
Doc. 340.
“[T]he prevailing party is prima facie
entitled to costs and it is incumbent on the
losing party to overcome that presumption . .
. .” Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d 1551, 1557
(11th Cir. 1984). A court must articulate a
sound basis for denying a prevailing party
its costs. See id. The trial court does not
have unfettered discretion because “denial
of costs is in the nature of a penalty. . . .”
Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012,
1039 (11th Cir. 2000).
“A party who has obtained some relief
usually will be regarded as the prevailing
party even though he has not sustained all
his claims. . . . Cases from this and other
circuits consistently support shifting costs if
the prevailing party obtains judgment on
even a fraction of the claims advanced.”
Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th
Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
Because the Court entered judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs on at least one of their
claims of relief, see Docs. 331 at 18; 339,
Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for the
purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
The Court maintains discretion in which
to award costs to Plaintiffs. Courts have
identified a number of factors that they may
consider such as the prevailing party’s
unclean hands, bad faith, dilatory tactics or
failure to comply with process, and the
losing party’s indigency or inability to pay.
See, e.g., In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
221 F.3d 449, 468 (3d Cir. 2000); see also
Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 270 (2d
Cir. 2001) (holding that costs may be denied
because of “misconduct by the prevailing
party, the public importance of the case, the
difficulty of the issues, or the losing party’s
limited financial resources”); Ass’n of
Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231
F.3d 572, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2000). The
Eleventh Circuit has stated, however, that
good faith and limited resources alone were
not enough to overcome “strong
presumption” in favor of awarding costs.
Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 149 F.
App’x 831, 832 (11th Cir. 2005).
see Lipscher v. LRP Publ’ns, Inc., 266 F.3d
1305, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (upholding
district court’s refusal to diminish award of
costs in light of nominal victory of plaintiff).
Bland has alleged neither that Plaintiffs
engaged in misconduct or dilatory tactics
during the litigation process, nor that it is
financially unable to pay the costs. In
addition, Plaintiffs won more than nominal
damages at trial. See Docs. 331; 339.
Moreover, the Head court stated that “a
party need not prevail on all issues to justify
a full award of costs.” Head, 62 F.3d at 354.
Regardless, “the Eleventh Circuit has made
it clear that costs may be denied to a
prevailing party only to penalize the
prevailing party for some misconduct on its
part during the litigation.” Fla. Keys Citizen
Coal., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
386 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1268-69 (S.D. Fla.
2005).
Likewise, the Court declines to
apportion the costs. “[T]here is no rule
requiring courts to apportion taxable costs
based on the relative success of the parties.”
Kemin Foods, L. C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales
Del Centro S.A. de C. V., 464 F.3d 1339,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Some courts have also considered the
nature of the prevailing party’s recovery in
determining whether to award costs. See
Richmond v. Southwire Co., 980 F.2d 518,
520 (8th Cir. 1992) (“An award of costs may
be reduced or denied because the prevailing
party obtained only a nominal victory, or
because the taxable costs of the litigation
were disproportionate to the result
achieved.”); White & White, Inc. v. Am.
Hosp. Supply Co., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th
Cir. 1986); see also Barber v. T.D.
Williamson, Inc., 254 F.3d 1223, 1234 (10th
Cir. 2001) (“[S]ome courts have chosen to
apportion costs among the parties or to
reduce the size of the prevailing party's
award to reflect the partial success.”). But
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
are entitled to costs. In assessing costs, the
Court is bound within the parameters of 28
U.S.C. § 1920. Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v.
MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293,
1296 (11th Cir. 2001). The Court, however,
“must determine that the costs claimed were
necessary and the amount claimed is
reasonable.” Copely v. Super. Logistics Alt.,
Inc., 2011 WL 1165476, at *5 (M.D. Ala.
Mar. 30, 2011).
Bland failed to file
2
objections to the specific items in Plaintiffs’
Bill of Costs. See Docs. 344; 349. Before
determining the award of costs, the Court
directs that Bland file objections it may have
to the specific items or amounts listed in the
Bill of Costs.
BLAND HAS SEVEN (7) DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE
SPECIFIC ITEMIZED OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF COSTS.
PLAINTIFFS ARE ORDERED TO
SUBMIT THEIR RESPONSE WITHIN
SEVEN (7) DAYS OF BLAND’S FILING.
The Court will not accept any replies.
This 27th day of September 2011.
96L-e
,/ ,
R AVANT EDENFIELO, RIDGE
UNiTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
3
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?