FORD v. COUNTY OF HUDSON et al
OPINION & ORDER granting 284 Motion to Amend/Correct. The Clerk's order and judgment (ECF no.280) is hereby reversed, etc. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 3/8/17. (cm )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 07-5002 (KM) (SCM)
OPINION & ORDER
COUNTY OF HUDSON, HUDSON
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, OSCAR AVILES, and
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Helen Ford’s unopposed
motion to review and to amend the order of the Clerk of Court (ECF no. 284)
taxing costs against Ford in favor of Defendant David Krusznis.
Because I write for the parties, I do not summarize the facts and history
of the case. This Opinion should be read as a companion to my Opinion
awarding costs and attorney’s fees to Ford, also filed today.
Ford prevailed at trial to the limited extent of an award of damages
totaling $39,338.75 against Krusznis’s co-defendants, the County and Aviles.
Defendant Krusznis, however, was not found liable on any claim, and a nocause judgment was entered as to him.
On April 6, 2016, the County and Krusznis, as a prevailing party, moved
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Civil Rule 54.1 for an order taxing
Ford with Krusznis’s costs.’ (ECF no. 252) Ford opposed the motion, arguing
Krusznis and the County were jointly represented. The County, however, was
not a prevailing party, and was not moving for costs on its own behalf. Aviles, who had
separate counsel, also was not a prevailing party, and does not move for costs.
that certain costs for computer-assisted legal research were not taxable costs
under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920. (ECF no. 256) Ford also generally objected to any
taxation of costs in favor of Krusznis because it was the County—a nonprevailing party—that footed the bill. (ECF no. 256) On July 6, 2016, the Clerk
entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Krusznis’s motion, and
taxing against Ford $5796. (ECF no. 280)
On July 13, 2016, seeking reduction or denial of any taxation of costs in
Krusznis’s favor, Ford moved for this Court’s review of the Clerk’s Order and
Judgment, pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Civil Rule 54.1. (ECF no. 284)
Krusznis has not submitted a response.
Under Rule 54 and Local Rule 54.1, the Clerk may tax costs—but not
attorney’s fees— in favor of a prevailing party on 14 days’ notice. Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1). Local Civil Rule 54.1(g) enumerates ten general rules for the Clerk to
observe in taxing costs. On appeal from the Clerk’s taxation of costs, the Court
may uphold, reduce, or reverse the award pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and
Local Civil Rule 54.1. See Reger v. The Nemours Foundation, Inc., 599 F.3d 285,
288 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[I]f a district court, within its discretion, denies or reduces
a prevailing party’s award of costs, it must articulate its reasons for doing so.”);
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Given
the district court’s discretionary equitable power to award costs under Rule
54(d)(1), taxation of costs is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.”).
Ford argues that the Clerk’s taxation of costs in favor of Krusznis should
be reversed in its entirety because Krusznis incurred no costs. The costs, she
says, were both incurred and paid by the County, a non-prevailing party. Ford
contends that the Court should assume, until proven otherwise, that the
County made no special expenditures on Krusznis’s behalf that it would not
have expended on its own account, even if it had been the only defendant.
The Clerk rejected Ford’s argument, relying on several courts that have
taxed costs without inquiring into the source of the payment of the costs or
whether the prevailing party agreed to reimburse its third-party benefactor. See
Guarrasi v. Gibbons Civ. A. No. 07-5475, 2011 WL 382598 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011)
(collecting cases). (Clerk’s Order, ECF no. 280 at 3—4) Ford, however,
distinguishes the cases the Clerk cites as situations in which a non-party, such
as an employer or insurer, ultimately absorbs the costs. Here, Ford argues, an
award of costs would effectively reimburse a non-prevailing defendant for its costs.
I agree with Ford that this case is distinguishable from those cited by the
clerk. True, I would not deny a prevailing party taxable costs merely because it
was jointly represented, or merely because a co-defendant or other party
happened to foot the bill. But where a non-prevailing party actually paid the
costs on its own account, where there is no indication that costs were ever
billed to the prevailing party at all, and where there is not demonstration of
some benefit specific to the prevailing party, an award of costs is not
Under these unique circumstances, Krusznis was a tag-along; in terms of
costs, this action cost him nothing. He was not billed or reimbursed for costs in
any manner. Accordingly, I will grant Ford’s unopposed motion to vacate the
Clerk’s award of costs.
Although Ford did not object to $240 in witness fees in her opposition to
Krusznis’s motion for taxation of costs, she objects now. A district court reviews the
Clerk’s cost award de novo and “retain[s] the discretion to assess independently the
factual record, whether the record consists of new evidence or old.” In re Paoli., 221
F.3d at 46 1—62. The testimony of these witnesses, says Ford, did not relate to
Krusznis. (ECF no. 252-1) Although the point is moot, I would agree that these
witnesses were called by the County, not Krusznis, and would therefore deduct the
$240 in witness fees from the taxed costs, leaving $5556.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS this 8th day of March, 2017
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s unopposed motion (ECF no. 284) to reverse
the Clerk’s order and judgment taxing the plaintiff with $5796 in costs in favor
of defendant Krusznis is GRANTED. The Clerk’s order and judgment (ECF no.
280) is hereby reversed.
United States District Judge
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?