SAMAAN v. ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying 143 Bill of Costs By CLERK OF COURT, Christa K. Berry. (ckb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine
ANTON K. SAMAAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL,
and
DAVID KAPLAN, M.D.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:09-cv-656-JAW

ORDER ON BILL OF COSTS
Prevailing parties are entitled to move for an award of costs pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides in pertinent part: “[u}nless
a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs . . .should be
allowed to the prevailing party.” As determined by the Court and affirmed upon
appeal, Defendants are the prevailing party in this case. Defendants seek costs in
the total amount of $7,164.69. Concluding that the imposition of costs would work a
substantial hardship in this case, the Clerk of Court DENIES Defendants’ Bill of
Costs.
The First Circuit has interpreted Rule 54(d) as creating a presumption in
favor of the taxation of costs for the prevailing party. Papas v. Hanlon, 849 F.2d
702, 704 (1st Cir. 1988) (“presumption inherent in Rule 54(d)”); see also Am. Auto.
Mfrs. Ass’n v. Comm’r, Mass. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 31 F.3d 18, 28 (1st Cir. 1994)
(“Prevailing parties are normally entitled to costs.”); In re Two Appeals Arising Out

of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 994 F.2d 956, 962 (1st Cir. 1993)
(“[T]his negative discretion . . . operates in the long shadow of a background
presumption favoring cost recovery for prevailing parties.”). However, the First
Circuit has also said that “a district court may…exercise its discretion to disallow a
prevailing party’s bill of costs in whole or in part…[if it] articulat[es] reasons.” In re
Two Appeals, 994 F. 2d at 963. In addition, the Court “may take into account the
limited financial resources of a plaintiff in assessing costs.” Papas, 849 F.2d at 704;
accord Mulvihill v. Spalding Worldwide Sports, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 121, 121 (D.
Mass. 2002).
The burden is on the losing party to demonstrate why costs should not be
awarded to the prevailing party. In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litigation, 661 F. 3d
1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) [citing Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079
(9th Cir. 1999)]. Having reviewed the Defendants’ Bill of Costs and the Plaintiff’s
Objection to Defendants’ Bill of Costs, the Plaintiff has more than met his burden.
Plaintiff’s argument that the imposition of costs upon him would cause an
undue hardship upon him is compelling in this case. Samaan is over 60 years old, is
disabled, has not received an income since early 2006, and is financially dependent
on public benefits and his family for his living expenses. Pl.’s Response to Bill of
Cost (Docket No. 153). Given these facts and the large amount of costs sought in
this case, I conclude that the imposition of costs in this case would “work a
significant hardship on the plaintiff.” Mulvihill, 239 F. Supp. 2d at 121.

2 

Costs in favor of the Defendants are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Christa K. Berry
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Dated this 9th day of February, 2012

3