Durham vs. AMIKIDS Baton Rouge, Inc. et al

Filing 60

RULING AND ORDER granting 59 MOTION to Review 58 Costs Taxed. The Clerk of Courts Taxation of Costs (Doc. 58) is VACATED. An award of costs shall not be allowed inthe above-captioned action.Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/3/2021. (KMW)

Case 3:18-cv-00559-BAJ-EWD

Document 60

03/03/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MELISSA DURHAM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
AMIKIDS, INC., ET AL.

NO. 18-00559-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Review (Doc. 59), seeking an
order vacating the Clerk of Court’s Taxation of Costs in the amount of $770.80 against
Plaintiff, and in Defendants’ favor. (See Doc. 58). In support of her Motion, Plaintiff
offers a sworn statement that since her termination of employment—which gave rise
to this action—she has “experienced tremendous financial … hardship,” which has
been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and is unable to pay the costs
assessed. (Doc. 59 at 1). Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion.
Unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order
provides otherwise, “costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the
prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Rule 54(d) “creates a strong presumption in
favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, and a district court may neither deny
nor reduce a prevailing party's request for costs without first articulating some good
reason for doing so.” U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C., 807 F.3d 125, 128
(5th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). A “good reason” for

Case 3:18-cv-00559-BAJ-EWD

Document 60

03/03/21 Page 2 of 2

denying a request for costs includes “the non-prevailing party's indigency (or inability
to pay costs).” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 453 (3d Cir. 2000); see
Moore v. CITGO Ref. & Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309, 320 n.9 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“Most circuits hold that a substantiated claim of the losing party's indigency may
justify a reduction of costs.” (quoting 10 James W. Moore et al., MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE § 54.101[1][b], at 54-157 (3d ed. 2013)).
Considering Plaintiff’s inability to pay, as well as her pro se status, and other
factors—including the relatively small amount of costs assessed, the hardships
wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and Defendants’ lack of opposition—the Court
determines that in this case, assessing the costs against Plaintiff creates an inequity,
and will vacate the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs on that basis.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Review (Doc. 59) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court’s Taxation of Costs (Doc.
58) is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an award of costs shall not be allowed in
the above-captioned action.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 3rd day of March, 2021

_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA