CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chicago Bancorp, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for bill of costs [#239] is granted. The Clerk of Court shall tax the following costs in favor of Citimortgage, Inc. and against Chicago Bancorp, Inc.: Fees of the Clerk $85. Fees for transcripts necessarily obtained $11,491.20.Fees for exemplification $424.80.Docket fees $350.TOTAL TAXABLE COSTS $12,351. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: Defendant's motion for setting and approval of supersedeas bond [#244] is granted. Defendant Chicago Bancorp shall post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,104,975.19. The execution of judgment will be STAYED only upon posting of the supersedeas bond. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on March 30, 2015. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CHICAGO BANCORP, INC.,
Case No. 4:12CV246 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is before the court on plaintiff Citimortgage’s bill of costs and
defendant Chicago Bancorp’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment while it
appeals upon posting of a supersedeas bond. I will award CMI the full amount of
costs it has sought, grant Chicago Bancorp’s request to set a reduced bond, and
stay enforcement of the final judgment while Chicago Bancorp appeals.
Bill of Costs
After winning a partial summary judgment and voluntarily dismissing the
remainder of its claims, CMI filed a bill of costs to be taxed against Chicago
Bancorp. Chicago Bancorp objected. See L.R. 54-8.03(A). Chicago Bancorp
does not dispute that CMI is the “prevailing party” in this action and is therefore
eligible to receive costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). It also appears to accept that
the costs sought by CMI are permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which enumerates
taxable costs. However, Chicago Bancorp argues that the costs should be
proportionally reduced because CMI achieved only a partial victory.
Rule 54(d)(1) provides that taxable costs “should be allowed to the
prevailing party.” See In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir. 2005)
(noting that Rule 54 creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs). To avoid
an award of costs, the losing party must show that it would be “inequitable under
the circumstances.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498
(8th Cir. 2002); see also Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1172
(2013) (district court ultimately has discretion over cost award).
Having considered Chicago Bancorp’s argument, I conclude that its
rationale is not compelling enough to overcome the presumption in favor of
awarding costs. A partially successful party is still a “prevailing party.” See 10
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §
2667 (3d ed. 1998). CMI here secured summary judgment on the majority of its
claims, and its request for costs appropriately includes only items enumerated in
Section 1920. See Concord Boat, 309 F.3d at 398 (there is a “strong presumption”
that a prevailing party recover its taxable costs “in full measure”) (quoting In re
Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000)). I will award the
full amount of costs it requests.
Motion for Approval of Supersedeas Bond
Chicago Bancorp has appealed. It seeks to post a supersedeas bond so
enforcement of the judgment will be stayed while the appeal is pending. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 62(d). “[T]he purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure an appellee
from loss resulting from the stay of execution and . . . a full supersedeas bond
should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Miami Int’l Realty Co. v.
Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986). The bond will usually include the
principal amount of the judgment, anticipated interest on the judgment, and costs.
See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Broadcasting–Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87
S.Ct. 1, 3 (1966).
In unusual circumstances, however, courts have discretion to require a lesser
bond or no bond at all. Miami Int’l Realty, 807 F.2d at 873; see also United States
v. Mansion House Ctr. Redevelopment Co., 682 F. Supp. 446, 449 (E.D. Mo.
1988). Here, Chicago Bancorp has demonstrated unusual circumstances. Without
addressing CMI’s ultimate right to recover the repurchase price on the Brown loan,
its conduct related to the property securing that loan is troubling. In light of this
unusual situation, I will grant Chicago Bancorp’s motion and set the amount of the
supersedeas bond at $1,104,975.19 for the reasons stated in its motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for bill of costs [#239]
is granted. The Clerk of Court shall tax the following costs in favor of
Citimortgage, Inc. and against Chicago Bancorp, Inc.:
Fees of the Clerk
Fees for transcripts necessarily obtained
Fees for exemplification
TOTAL TAXABLE COSTS
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
Defendant’s motion for setting and approval of supersedeas bond [#244] is
Defendant Chicago Bancorp shall post a supersedeas bond in the amount of
The execution of judgment will be STAYED only upon posting of the
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of March, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?