Waad et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A WAIVER AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL (Doc. 85) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAHER WAAD, an individual,
MARKS ONE CAR RENTAL, a
Michigan corporation, MARKS ONE
COLLISION, a Michigan corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 16-13362

SERGEANT DAN WILLIS, in his individual capacity,
DETECTIVE DAVE KRISS, in his individual and
official capacity, LIEUTENANT MARK OERMAN,
THE COUNTY OF MACOMB, a municipality,
jointly and severally,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
________________________________________/
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. 85)
I. Introduction
This is a civil rights case. Broadly stated, plaintiffs claimed that defendants have
historically had a vendetta against Maher Waad (Waad) and his companies which led to a
2014 raid on Waad’s companies and resulted in criminal charges against him that were
later dismissed. Waad and the two companies owned by him, Marks One Car Rental and
Marks One Collision, initially sued multiple individuals and entities, as follows: (1) Farmers
Insurance Exchange (Farmers), (2) Allen Keller - an employee of Farmers, (3) Sergeant
Dan Willis (Willis) - a Macomb County Sheriff, (4) Detective Dave Kriss (Kriss) - a Warren
police officer, (5) Lieutenant Mark Oerman (Oerman) a Macomb County Deputy Sheriff,
(6) Dana Goldberg - a Macomb County deputy prosecutor, (7) Macomb County, (8)

Macomb County Sheriff’s Department, and (9) Michigan Auto Theft Authority.
Following various stipulations and motion practice, see Docs. 32, 33, 34, 37 the
remaining defendants were: (1) Willis, in his individual capacity, (2) Kriss, in his official
and individual capacity, (3) Oerman, in his individual capacity, and (4) Macomb County.
The defendants then filed the following motions: (1) Macomb County’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 55); Oerman and Willis’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
56); Kriss’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72); and Kriss’ Renewed Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 75).
The Court granted the motions for summary judgment and denied the motion for
sanctions. (Doc. 81). A judgment then entered in favor of defendants. (Doc. 82). Kriss
then submitted a bill of costs (Doc. 84) which the Clerk taxed in the amount of $3,329.69
(Doc. 85).
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. 85).1 For the reasons that follow, the request is DENIED.
II. Discussion
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 Kriss and awarded by the

1

Plaintiffs have not filed a notice of appeal and the time for doing so appears to
have elapsed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Clerk - transcript fees - fall within the requisite categories. 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.
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. 85 at p. 2) 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 because the depositions were not relevant to Kriss’ defense. This argument
lacks merit as each of the depositions were used in support of Kriss’ motion for summary

2

judgment and referenced by the Court in its order granting summary judgment.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are not entitled to a reduction in the amount of the taxed costs.
D. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to a Stay
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. Kriss says that the request for a stay pending appeal must be denied because
(1) they have not appealed (see n. 1, supra) and (2) even if plaintiffs appealed, they have
not posted – or offered to post – a supersedeas bond as required under Fed. R. Civ. P.
62(d). The Court agrees. There is no basis to grant a stay.
E. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Sanctioned
Kriss requests that the Court sanction plaintiffs because (1) the motion is untimely
and (2) is virtually identical to a motion filed in a related case against Farmers which the
Court denied. See Doc. 292 in Case No. 13-14610. Putting aside whether the motion
was timely filed,2 the Court is disturbed by the fact that the current motion presents the
same arguments, in some instances verbatim, as the motion in the Farmers case which
were rejected. That said, the Court in its discretion declines to impose a sanction.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
_
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 2/6/2019
Detroit, Michigan

2

Costs were taxed on December 27, 2018. Plaintiffs had seven (7) days in which
to object, or by January 3, 2019. The motion was filed on January 7, 2019.

3