Marks One Car Rental, Inc. v. Auto Club Group Insurance Company et al

Filing 294

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A WAIVER AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL (Doc. 292) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARKS ONE CAR RENTAL, INC., MARKS
ONE LLC, d/b/a/ MARKS ONE COLLISION,
and MAHER WAAD,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 13-14610

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
___________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR A WAIVER AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
PENDING APPEAL (Doc. 292)
I. Introduction
This is a business tort case. Marks One Car Rental, Inc., Marks One, LLC,
Marks One Collision (collectively Marks One) and Maher Waad (Waad), collectively
“plaintiffs,” sued Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers).1 Broadly stated, plaintiffs
alleged that Farmers defamed plaintiffs to customers and potential customers during
fraud investigations into plaintiffs’ repair and rental activity. The Court granted Farmers’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 285). Plaintiffs have appealed. (Doc. 288).
Farmers filed a Bill of Costs. (Doc. 286). The Clerk taxed costs in the amount of
1

Plaintiffs initially sued several insurance and car rental companies. Following
motion practice and stipulations, only Farmers remained as a defendant. See Doc. 70
(Enterprise Leasing), Doc. 71 (Hertz Corporation), Doc. 87 (Titan Insurance, Allied
Insurance, Nationwide Insurance), Doc. 88 (HelpPoint Claims Services), Doc. 141
(Bristol West Insurance, Foremost Insurance, 21st Century Insurance), Doc. 234 (Auto
Club Group), Doc. 248 (Geico Insurance), and Doc. 262 (Citizens Insurance).

$9,576.05 (Doc. 290).
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ paper styled “Plaintiffs’ Request for a Waiver and
Objections to Defendants’ Bill of Costs and Request for a Stay of Proceedings Pending
Appeal.” (Doc. 292). For the reasons that follow, the request is DENIED.
II. Plaintiffs’ Motion
A. The Taxed Costs Were Appropriate
As an initial matter, Fed. R. Civil P. 54(d)(1) provides: “Unless a federal statute,
these rules, 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)(1) The categories of
recoverable costs are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and in the Eastern District of
Michigan’s Bill of Costs Handbook. The costs requested by Farmers and awarded by
the Clerk all fall within the requisite categories, i.e. service fees, court reporter fees, and
witness fees. In other words, the taxed costs were accurate and appropriate.
B. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to a Wavier of the Taxed Costs
Plaintiffs seek a waiver of the taxed costs. In considering whether to waive taxed
costs, a court looks to factors such as whether: 1) the costs are “unnecessary or
unreasonably large;” 2) whether the prevailing party “unnecessarily prolong[ed] trial or
inject[ed] unmeritorious issues;” and 3) if the case was “close and difficult.” White &
White, Inc. v. Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (internal quotations omitted).
Factors the trial court should not consider include “the size of a successful litigant’s
recovery, and the ability of the prevailing party to pay his or her own costs.” Id.
Moreover, the “good faith a losing party demonstrates in filing, prosecuting or defending
an action” is an “insufficient basis for denying costs.” Id.
2

Here, plaintiffs says that the taxed costs should be waived because “the litigation
raised serious questions that were not readily or necessarily properly resolved,” that
their own costs were significant, and that “[l]itigants should not be fearful of bringing
legitimate claims and the imposition of costs without thoughtful consideration raises
such fears.” (Doc. 292.) None of these asserted grounds are relevant and do not
provide a reason to deviate from the presumption that costs should be assessed. As
such, plaintiffs’ request to waive costs is denied.
C. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to a Reduction in the Taxed Costs
Plaintiffs also request that the Court waive or reduce some of the taxed costs
incurred with respect to certain deposition transcripts because plaintiffs have identified
various different prices per page charged by the same court reporting company.
Plaintiffs, however, do not cite any authority to challenge the reasonableness of what a
third party vendor might charge. Accordingly, the are not entitled to a reduction in the
amount of the taxed costs.
D. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to a Stay Unless they Post a Bond
Finally, plaintiffs request the Court “stay the process of taxing costs until the
appeal has been resolved” or until the completion Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’s
mediation process. While the parties may defer proceeding on taxed costs pending
appeal, they are not required to do so. See Bill of Costs Handbook, Nov. 2013 edition.
Section I. B. If the Court enters a stay pending appeal, then the taxed costs will be
stayed. See id.
Plaintiffs request for a stay pending appeal must be denied because they have
not posted – or offered to post – a supersedeas bond as required under Fed. R. Civ. P.
3

62(d). The Court will not stay proceedings on the taxed costs without plaintiffs first
posting a bond at an amount determined by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 6/19/2018
Detroit, Michigan

4