Bell v. Help at Home Inc.

Filing 63

ORDER and OPINION entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 4/23/19. Defendant's Motion for Costs 60 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to MOOT 61 , as the long-form in forma pauperis application was completed for the sole purpose of determining Plaintiff's financial situation with respect to the Motion for Costs. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 23 April, 2019 03:10:13 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LINDA SUE BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
HELP AT HOME, INC. n/k/a HELP AT
HOME, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-1250-JES-JEH

ORDER AND OPINION
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 60) for Costs. Plaintiff has filed a
Response (Doc. 62) alleging indigence. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion
(Doc. 60) is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed the final Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) on August 7, 2017. Defendant filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) on December 3, 2018, which the Court granted on
March 8, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Defendant filed the Motion for Costs, seeking $3,613.47 for
costs associated with Plaintiff’s deposition and for copying and binding their Motion for
Summary Judgment. Doc. 60.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that costs other than attorney’s fees
should be allowed to the prevailing party unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or a court order provides otherwise. In the Seventh Circuit, courts may deny costs to
the prevailing party where the non-prevailing party is indigent. See Arce v. Chicago Transit
Authority, 738 F. App’x 355, 360 (7th Cir. 2018). In order to do so, courts must first make a
1

threshold factual finding that the non-prevailing party is “incapable of paying the court-imposed
costs at this time or in the future,” with the burden on the non-prevailing party to make that
showing through documentary evidence. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir.
2006). If the non-prevailing party makes this showing, the court must then consider several
factors in determining whether to deny costs to a prevailing party: “the amount of costs, the good
faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff has provided a statement of her assets under penalty of perjury that
establishes she makes $444 per month, or $5,328 per year, which is less than half of the federal
poverty level for a single person. See Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Annual Update of the
HHS Poverty Guidelines, 84 Fed. Reg. 1167 (Feb. 1, 2019). She has established that she is a
substitute teacher, her only assets are an $800 car and $200 in the bank, she does not expect to
make more money in the future, and she cares for her 88-year-old mother. Docs. 61, 62. Plaintiff
states that she spends about $200 per month on food, $200 per year on clothing, $200 per year on
recreation, and $1,068 on her vehicle, amounting to yearly expenses of about $3,868. Doc. 61,
p. 3. The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried the burden of making a threshold showing of
indigence.
The Court now turns to the Rivera factors. The amount of costs ($3,613.47) is substantial
in light of Plaintiff’s lack of assets, minimal income, and relatively substantial expenses. The
Court further finds that Plaintiff brought this case in good faith. Finally, although the issues in
this case were not particularly close or difficult, the Court finds this factor is not determinative,
in light of the other factors. Plaintiff will therefore not be required to pay Defendant’s costs
associated with this action.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for Costs (Doc. 60) is DENIED. The
Clerk is directed to MOOT Doc. 61, as the long-form in forma pauperis application was
completed for the sole purpose of determining Plaintiff’s financial situation with respect to the
Motion for Costs.
Signed on this 23rd day of April, 2019.
/s James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

3