International Payment Group Inc et al v. Suntrust Bank

Filing 115

ORDER and OPINION re 111 Bill of Costs as set out. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/17/18. (alew, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
) Civil Action No.: 7:13-cv-1883-BHH
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
vs.
)
)
)
SunTrust Bank,
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
John Kirkland Fort, Chapter 7 Trustee
for International Payment Group, Inc.,

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant SunTrust Bank’s (“Defendant”) Bill
of Costs. (ECF No. 111.) The Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on
August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 107.) Defendant timely submitted its Bill of Costs in the
amount of $18,458.56. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Bill of Costs,
and the time to do so has expired. (See ECF Nos. 111, 114.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants Defendant’s request for costs.
LEGAL STANDARD
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “costs-other than attorney’s
fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). As such, there is
a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party. See Teague v. Bakker, 35
F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994); see also Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442,
446 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the unsuccessful party to show
circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring an award of costs to the
prevailing party. Id. (citing Teague, 35 F.3d at 996).
1

To overcome the presumption favoring the prevailing party and to deny that party
costs, the court must articulate some “good reason” for doing so. Teague, 35 F.3d at
996; see also Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d
291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990). Among the factors that justify denying an award of costs are:
(1) misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the unsuccessful party’s inability to pay the
costs; (3) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case; (4) the limited value of the
prevailing party’s victory; or (5) the closeness and difficulty of the issues decided. Id.
(citing Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446). Ultimately, the court has discretion to award or deny
costs to the prevailing party. Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446.
DISCUSSION
In this case, there is no suggestion of misconduct by Defendant, the prevailing
party, and Defendant’s victory is not of limited value. Thus, the first and fourth factors
counsel toward assessing costs in favor of Defendant. There has been no assertion that
Plaintiff, the unsuccessful party, is unable to pay the itemized costs or that the costs are
excessive given the nature of the case. Accordingly, the second and third factors weigh
in favor of assessing costs as itemized. Finally, the closeness and difficulty of the issues
decided is revealed by the fact that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South
Carolina, Judge Helen E. Burris presiding, submitted proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law to this Court—recommending, inter alia, that the Court deny summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s claims of negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary
duty—which the Court adopted in part, but also modified in part and granted summary
judgment on all claims. (See ECF No. 106.) Thus, the fifth factor also counsels toward
assessing costs in Defendant’s favor.
2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds all of the costs sought to be
recoverable. The Court, therefore, awards costs in the amount of $18,458.56 to
Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 17, 2018

3