Coke et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER Sustaining re 25 Response (Objection) to Defendants Bill of Tax filed by David Joseph Huramto. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cordell Anthony Coke, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 13-13374

Delta Airlines, Inc.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiffs are two former baggage handlers who were employed by Defendant Delta
Airlines, Inc. (“Delta”). They were both terminated in 2011, after their security badges, which
are necessary for them to perform their jobs, were revoked by a third party after criminal charges
were brought against them. They were both indicted and charged with being involved in a drug
conspiracy that allegedly involved smuggling drugs into Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Plaintiffs
were both ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges after a jury trial in 2013, but Delta
declined to rehire them. In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that Delta discriminated against them
based on their national origin when it terminated them and when it decided not to re-hire them.
They also alleged that the decision not to rehire them violated public policy.
The matter is came before the Court on Defendant Delta’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. In an Opinion & Order issued on November 14, 2014, this Court granted Delta’s
motion and dismissed this action.
Thereafter, Delta filed a Bill of Costs and the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in the
amount of $1,094.85. (Docket Entry No. 24). Plaintiffs objected to the costs taxed, claiming,
1

among other things, that they are indigent and unable to pay the costs taxed. Delta responded to
the objections.
The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties’ briefs and
that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) provides that “costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed
to the prevailing party” unless a federal statute or court order provides otherwise. While there is
a presumption in favor of awarding costs, the rule allows a denial of costs at the discretion of the
trial court. Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir. 2001). Among the factors that a
district court can consider in determining whether to award costs are the losing party’s good faith
and the indigency of the losing party.
Although Plaintiffs did not survive summary judgment, the Court concludes that the
litigation was taken in good faith. Moreover, after considering the declarations filed by Joesph
and Coke, the Court concludes that their inability to pay also weighs against an award of costs in
this particular action.
Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSTAINS Plaintiffs’ objections to the taxed costs and
ORDERS that no costs shall be taxed in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: February 27, 2015

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cordell Anthony Coke, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 13-13374

Delta Airlines, Inc.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
_____________________________/
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on February 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

3