Hicks v. Poppish et al

Filing 94

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 2/13/2012: For the reasons stated below, Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $4,163.20; however, execution on the award of costs is stayed until further order of the Court . The parties are directed to confer to determine whether to work out a payment plan or stay the execution of the judgment on costs until the plaintiffs financial circumstances improve and to file a joint status report by 3/9/2012 advising whether they have come to agreement. If they have not come to an agreement, the parties should include in the status report a short statementof their respective positions. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

09 C 3514

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

2/13/2012

Hicks vs. Poppish, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $4,163.20; however, execution on
the award of costs is stayed until further order of the Court. The parties are directed to confer to determine
whether to work out a payment plan or stay the execution of the judgment on costs until the plaintiff’s financial
circumstances improve and to file a joint status report by 3/9/2012 advising whether they have come to
agreement. If they have not come to an agreement, the parties should include in the status report a short statement
of their respective positions.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
After prevailing on a motion for summary judgment in this case, Defendants submitted a bill of costs seeking
$4,163.20, the bulk of which relates to court reporter and transcription fees. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to
file objections to the bill of costs. Plaintiff has not objected to any of the specific line items,[FN 1] but has
interposed a general objection on the basis of her financial circumstances. In support of that objection, Plaintiff
submitted financial affidavits [see 88, 90], the most recent of which was transmitted through counsel following
the Court’s request for additional information [93], and will now be placed on the docket to complete the record.
Taken as a whole, the financial affidavits reveal the following: Plaintiff holds and maintains an active real estate
license, but (like many realtors) had a lean year in 2011 due to the economy and the housing market. She sold
her vehicle to her father to pay a debt that she owed him and has little or no ability to satisfy the amount of the
bill of costs at this time. However, she intends to keep her real estate license active, and thus has the potential
to earn a living selling real estate should market conditions improve.
[FN 1] Although Plaintiff has not raised any specific objections to the costs claimed, the Court
has examined the bill of costs and supporting materials to determine whether the costs are
reasonable and adequately supported. Defendants seek fees for the court reporter and transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case, printing, and exemplification and copies, each of which
is included in the list of recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Republic Tobacco Co. v.
N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7th Cir. 2007). Further, the amount of fees and costs
requested is reasonable. See, e.g., Kaplan v. City of Chicago, 2009 WL 1940789, at *4 (N.D. Ill.
July 6, 2009) (“courts in this district have found photocopying costs between $0.10 and $0.20 per
page to be reasonable”); Shanklin Corp., 2006 WL 2054382, at *4 (same); see also N.D. Ill L.R.
54.1(b) (stating that the costs of a transcript shall not exceed the regular copy rate established by
the Judicial Conference of the United States). Accordingly, the Court finds that the costs and fees
Defendants have requested are recoverable and that the amount requested is reasonable. See
09C3514 Hicks vs. Poppish, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000).
As the Court previously noted, while “[i]t is within the district court’s discretion to consider a plaintiff’s
indigency in denying costs under Rule 54(d),” “indigence does not automatically excuse the losing party from
paying the prevailing party’s costs.” Gonzalez v. Houlihan’s Restaurants, Inc., 2010 WL 1664931, at *4 (N.D.
Ill. Apr, 23, 2010) (citing Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006). The Seventh Circuit has
held that the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that she is “incapable of paying the court-imposed costs
at this time or in the future.” Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635 (emphasis added).
The situation for Plaintiff here is similar to that of the plaintiff in Gonzalez. As Magistrate Judge Cole observed,
“Plaintiff has worked in the past; she just doesn’t happen to have a job now, and it would be unreasonable to
conclude that she will never work again.” Gonzalez, 2010 WL 1664931, at *5. In fact, Plaintiff here does work,
as reflected in the commission check that she received in November, but she does so sparingly given current
market conditions. “It is thus inappropriate to excuse her from paying those costs the drafters of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure have in their wisdom concluded should be awarded to the prevailing party.” Id.; see also
Rivera, 469 F.3d at 638 (explaining the importance of enforcing the rules on payment of costs to prevailing parties
“in an even-handed fashion”). However, in view of Plaintiff’s current financial circumstances, the Court will
follow the procedure adopted by Judge Cole in Gonzalez, which tracks in large part a procedure implemented by
Judge Hart in Denson v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad, 2003 WL 21506946 (N.D. Ill. June 27,
2003), upon which the Seventh Circuit commented favorably in Rivera, 469 F.3d at 636. The costs requested
by Defendants of $4,163.20 are imposed on Plaintiff, but the parties are directed to confer “to determine whether
to work out a payment plan or stay the execution of the judgment on costs until the plaintiff’s financial
circumstances improve.” Gonzalez, 2010 WL 1664931, at *6. The parties are directed to file a joint status report
by 3/9/2012 advising whether they have come to agreement – and, if not, a short statement of their respective
positions. For now, the costs are imposed, but execution on the award of costs is stayed until further order of the
Court.

09C3514 Hicks vs. Poppish, et al.

Page 2 of 2