Avakian v. Citibank N.A. et al

Filing 95

ORDER OVERRULING 93 Objection filed by Citibank N.A. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 2/24/2014. (bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
BURNETTE AVAKIAN
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-139-SA-DAS

CITIBANK, N.A.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Following a verdict in her favor, Plaintiff Burnette Avakian filed a Bill of Costs [92], in
response to which, Defendant Citibank, N.A. filed an Objection [93]. Citibank’s only ground for
objecting to the Bill of Costs is that Plaintiff failed to specifically request costs in her Complaint
or at any other time prior to the filing of the Bill of Costs. However, as Plaintiff correctly argues
in response, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute,
these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--should be
allowed to the prevailing party.” Whereas “a claim for attorney’s fees … must be made by
motion ….” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2)(A), no such requirement is placed on costs taxable pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In the case at bar, Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs includes Clerk’s fees and fees for
printed or electronically recorded transcripts, totaling $561.35.

These itemized costs are

enumerated and allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), respectively.
Citibank offers no authority for its position that Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, must
request costs in order to be awarded them under Rule 54(d)(1).

Accordingly, Citibank’s

Objection to the Bill of Costs [93] is OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of February, 2014.
_/s/ Sharion Aycock________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE