Felders et al v. Bairett

Filing 436

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS- denying 430 Motion ; Motions terminated: 430 Plaintiff's MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE CLERKS TAXATION OF COSTS re 429 Costs Taxed and Memorandum in Support filed by Sherida Felders, Delarryon Hansend, Elijah Madyun. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 1/25/17. (jmr)

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

SHERIDA FELDERS, et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER re MOTION FOR
REVIEW OF CLERK’S
TAXATION OF COSTS

Plaintiffs,
vs.

BRIAN BAIRETT, et al.,

Case No. 2:08-cv-993 CW

Defendants.

Judge Clark Waddoups

On October 15, 2016, Defendant Jeff Malcom timely filed a Bill of Costs in which he
sought a total of $8,903.08 (Dkt. No. 424). Plaintiffs objected and moved to strike the Bill of
Costs. (Dkt. No. 425). Defendant Malcom opposed the motion and filed an Amended Bill of
Costs seeking a reduced amount of $1,039.08. (Dkt. No. 428). In response, the Clerk of Court
disallowed some of the requested costs and taxed costs of $923.65. (Dkt. No. 429). Now before
the court is Plaintiffs’ objections (Dkt. No. 425) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of the
Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. (Dkt. No. 430).
Plaintiffs observe that the Clerk has “rectified and properly disallowed 96% of the
expenses Defendant Malcom attempted to claim as costs.” (Dkt. No. 430, p. 1). Plaintiffs
claim, however, that the awarded costs should also be disallowed. First, Plaintiffs argue that no
costs should be allowed because Defendant Malcom was not the prevailing party. (Dkt. No.
430, p. 2–4). The court previously rejected this argument and found that Malcom was the
prevailing party on the claims asserted against him. (Dkt. No. 403, p. 9-10). None of the
1

arguments made by Plaintiffs supports that the court erred in this decision.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Malcom’s Bill of Costs should be disallowed
because he failed to “(i) clearly and concisely itemize and describe the costs [and] (ii) set forth
the statutory basis for seeking reimbursement” (Dkt. No. 430, p. 4-5) (citation and quotation
marks omitted). Plaintiffs further argue that, although the initial Bill of Costs was filed timely,
the Amended Bill of Costs which complied with the rule was untimely and should be stricken.
(Dkt. No. 430, p. 5). The Clerk found that Defendant Malcom had cured any deficiencies in the
original Bill of Costs and declined to deny the request on that ground. (Dkt. No. 429, p. 2).
Plaintiffs fail to cite any prejudice or confusion resulting from Defendant Malcom’s Amended
Bill of Costs. Plaintiffs’ claim that they did not have timely notice ignores that all of the costs
awarded were included in the original Bill. Indeed, in the amendment, Malcom recognized that
some amounts in the original Bill were not appropriate and withdrew them. Thus, Plaintiffs
benefitted from the amendment. Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority that the court is required to
strictly construe the local rules to deny costs absent a showing of prejudice to the Plaintiffs.
The court finds that the Clerk correctly taxed costs as allowed by the rule, rejects Plaintiffs’
objection and DENIES the Motion for Review.
DATED this 25th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

2