Currier v. PDL Recovery Group, LLC et al

Filing 217

ORDER Granting 185 Motion for Costs. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Ryan Currier,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-12179

PDL Recovery Group, LLC, et al.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF NON-TAXABLE COSTS
On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff Ryan Currier (“Plaintiff”) filed a Bill of Costs with the Clerk
of the Court. (Doc. # 184). The Clerk subsequently issued a Taxed Bill of Cost in the amount of
$8,824.85 in Plaintiff’s favor. (Doc. # 188).
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Ryan Currier’s Motion for Award of Non-Taxable
Costs, brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. (Doc. # 185). The FDCPA allows for costs
together with reasonable attorney fees. At issue here are costs which would not normally be
taxable under the provisions of Rule 54 or 28 U.S.C. § 19201 (i.e., costs that would not be
appropriate in the Bill of Costs).
Plaintiff requests non-taxable costs in the amount of $6,852.56, “as a component of fees
for Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Id. at Pg ID 2273). Plaintiff argues that pursuant to the FDCPA’s feeshifting statute, he is entitled to costs that are not taxable under the federal rules.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for non-taxable costs. (Doc. # 191, at Pg ID 2774-

1

Section 1920 enumerates items that a court may tax as “costs” to a prevailing party
under Rule 54(d).

75). Defendants argue that Plaintiff submitted a Bill of Costs and has already been granted
“taxable costs” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of $8,824.85. Defendants conclude
that “since Plaintiff has presented all that he is entitled to in his Bill of Costs, Plaintiff’s request
for non-taxable costs must be denied.” (Id. at Pg ID 2775). Although not expressly stated, it
appears that Defendants are arguing that the FDCPA’s fee-shifting statute only allows for
taxable costs under § 1920. Defendants fail to develop their position or support their position
with any applicable authority, and the Court was unable to locate any Sixth Circuit cases
standing for the Defendants’ stated proposition.
In Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 2003 WL 187416, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Jan.
22, 2003), the district court explained that:
In determining whether a particular expense may be recovered as part of expenses
under a statute authorizing awards of attorney fees and expenses, such as §
1692k(a)(3), courts have generally held that an award may include expenses not
defined as ‘costs’ in the costs statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, if they are of a type billed
separately to the client, i.e., not absorbed in the attorney’s hourly rate as
overhead. LeBlanc–Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748 763 (2d Cir. 1998) (
“‘[A]ttorney’s fees awards include those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by attorneys and ordinarily charged to their clients.’”) (quoting United
States Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 887 F.2d 408, 416 (2d Cir.
1989)); Cleveland Area Bd. of Realtors v. City of Euclid, 965 F. Supp. 1017, 1023
(N.D. Ohio 1997) (“An attorney’s fee under § 1988 includes those expenses that
are incurred in order for the attorney to render his or her legal services and that
would normally be charged to a fee-paying client.”)
Gradisher, 2003 WL 187416, at *8. The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.
Here, Plaintiff describes the expenses for which he seeks costs and he argues that the
costs were reasonably incurred and are ordinarily charged to clients. Plaintiff also supports his
requests with documentation (i.e., invoices/receipts). Defendants have not specifically objected
to any of the itemized expenses and the Court views these expenses as those which are ordinarily
charged to clients.

Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Non-Taxable
Costs. Plaintiff is therefore awarded non-taxable costs in the amount of $6,852.56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2017

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on August 17, 2017, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon Mara Pfazler via First Class mail at the address below:
Mara Pfalzer
919 Bennett Road
Angola, NY 14006
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager