Palacios v. Sure Systems et al

Filing 205

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 202 Motion to Alter Judgment/Objection to Taxation of Costs and Motion for Review. The Taxation of Costs is VACATED. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 4/12/2011. (ce)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

CLARA PALACIOS,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:08-cv-755 CW

SURE SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Clara Palacios’ Objection to Taxation of Costs and
Motion for Review. Following a two-week jury trial in January 2011, in which Defendants Sure
Systems, LLC and Marcelo A. Occon (“Defendants”) prevailed, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs for
$8,567.43. On March 8, 2011, the Chief Deputy Clerk determined that some of the requested costs
were inappropriate. She therefore reduced the taxed costs to $4,278.43. Plaintiff moves the court
to review and vacate the award based on Plaintiff’s indigency.
A trial court has discretion to disallow costs. Such discretion, however, it not unlimited.1
Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “creates a presumption that the district court will
award costs to the prevailing party.”2 The Tenth Circuit has recognized, however, that certain factors

1

Cantrell v. Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (10th Cir. 1995).

2

Id. at 459.
1

can overcome the presumption. One factor is if “the nonprevailing party [is] indigent.”3 Also
relevant is the potential “chilling effect of imposing . . . high costs on future civil rights litigants.”4
Here, Plaintiff has been approved to proceed in forma pauperis due to indigency. Moreover,
Plaintiff presented compelling evidence that she was raped by a co-worker. Defendants prevailed
on the hostile work environment claim not because they disproved their liability, but because of a
statute of limitations issue that was factually disputed. Were the court to impose costs under such
circumstances, it may well have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigants. For these reasons,
the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Review5 and VACATES the taxation of costs.6
SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

3

Id. (citing 741 F.2d 1525, 1542 (7th Cir. 1984).

4

Sutton v. Corrections Corp of Am., No. 06-cv-01606, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69198 (D. Colo. Aug.
29, 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (ellipses in original).
5

Dkt. No. 200.

6

Dkt. No. 199.
2