Brown v. Evans et al

Filing 80

MOTION by Plaintiff Alfonso Brown for judgment on plaintiff's bill of costs (corrected, with exhibit attached) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Dymkar, Irene)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ALFONSO BROWN, Plaintiff, v. GLENN EVANS, RUBEN VARGAS, THERESA A. WALDBUESSER, CHRIS C. YOUNG, LUIS A. CENTENO, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendants. ) ) ) ) Case No. 15 C 2844 ) ) Judge Sara L. Ellis ) ) Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS Plaintiff, Alfonso Brown, by and through his attorney, Irene K. Dymkar, hereby moves this Court for judgment on plaintiff’s bill of costs. In support of this motion, plaintiff states: 1) This action was commenced by the filing of a complaint alleging a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1983), to redress deprivations of the civil rights of plaintiff through acts and/or omissions of defendants committed under color of law. 2) Plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment on all claims from all defendants on December 12, 2016. Doc. 72. Judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor on December 13, 2016, for $20,001.00 Doc. 74. 3) No appeal of the judgment has been taken by any party. 4) Plaintiff filed a bill of costs on January 6, 2017, for $499.36. Doc. 76. 5) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), the clerk of court is to tax the costs after 14 days, after which time the defendants have 7 days to object. 6) Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defendants’ counsel on February 14, 2017, demanding payment of costs. Initially attorney Julian Johnson responded in an email that the check had been ordered. However, he then said in a subsequent email that he had made a mistake and would be in fact contesting the bill of costs. 7) Plaintiff’s bill of costs is reasonable. For example, the bill of costs does not include $187.50 in court reporter attendance costs for the video deposition of a witness, Essie Gomire, for whom defendants had also ordered a court reporter. See Exhibit A. 8) Defendants are acting unreasonably and are deliberately wasting the Court’s time and the time of plaintiff’s counsel. The whole purpose of Rule 68 is to streamline the settlement process. Nevertheless, defendants delayed payment of the $20,001.00 settlement for plaintiff and would not negotiate a settlement of attorneys’ fees, thus forcing plaintiff’s counsel to have to prepare and file a fees petition. Now they are also belatedly attempting to contest a $499.36 bill of costs. 9) Defendants have had ample time to file their objections. Plaintiff moves this Court for judgment on plaintiff’s bill of costs, and is sending to the Court’s designated email address the proposed judgment. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Alfonso Brown, respectfully asks the Court for judgment of $499.36 on plaintiff’s bill of costs. Dated: February 17, 2016 /s/ 2 Irene K. Dymkar Irene K. Dymkar Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Irene K. Dymkar Shamoyita M. DasGupta Daniel H. Regenscheit Law Offices of Irene K. Dymkar 53 West Jackson, Suite 733 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 345-0123 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?