Velez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc.

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants bill of costs (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall tax the following costs against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant:Fees of the Clerk: $ 350.00 TOTAL: $ 350.00 re: 26 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/3/12. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
AIDA VELEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES.,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-00143

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Aida Velez brought this action against Defendant Portfolio Recovery
Associates, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Saint Charles County alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C §162 et. seq., and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C § 227 et. seq. Defendant removed the action to
this Court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6.) After
conducting a hearing, the Court, in accordance with its July 25, 2012 Memorandum and
Order (Doc. No. 24), granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
On August 15, 2012, Defendant filed a bill of costs in the amount of $350 seeking to
recover costs associated with the filing of the petition for removal. Plaintiff objects to the bill
of costs in its entirety. Upon consideration of the briefs submitted and for the reasons set
forth below, the proposed bill of costs will be granted.
Applicable Law
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), “[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.” Under the Rule, a “prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its
costs.” 168th and Dodge, LP v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC, 501 F.3d 945, 958 (8th Cir.
2007) (quotation omitted). Only the expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 19201 or other
statutory authority may be taxed as “costs” under Rule 54(d). Smith v. Tenet Healthsystem
SL, Inc., 436 F.3d 879, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons,
Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-442 (1987)). Within the statutory framework, the Court has broad
discretion to determine and award costs as appropriate in a given case. Blakley v.
Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 930 (8th Cir. 2011); Little Rock Cardiology Clinic
PA v. Baptist Health, 591 F.3d 591, 601 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that district courts have broad
discretion over the award of costs to a prevailing party).
The taxation of costs under Rule 54(d) is permissive, but there is a strong presumption
favoring an award of costs to the prevailing party. See Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
472 F.3d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 2006). To rebut the presumption that the prevailing party is
entitled to recover all of its costs, a district court must provide a rationale for denying the
prevailing party’s claim for costs. Id. (citing cases).

1

Section 1920 provides: A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as
costs the following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for
printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any
materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under
section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under
section 1828 of this title.
-2-

Fees of the Clerk
Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request for costs, asserting that the Court in its order
dismissing the action “determined . . . that Defendant’s request for costs (and fees) was
denied.” In its earlier order, the Court denied Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and
costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) of the FDCPA, finding no basis for a determination
that the action was brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. That earlier ruling
does not preclude a determination that Defendant having successfully moved to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is a prevailing party for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and
thus entitled to an award of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s bill of costs (Doc. No. 26) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall tax the following
costs against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant:
Fees of the Clerk:

$

350.00

TOTAL:

$

350.00

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2012.

-3-