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)

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
[phone]

3