Carter v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Bill of Costs is OVERRULED, and Defendant's costs are to be taxed against Plaintiff in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A copy of this Memorandum Order was forwarded to all counsel of record on 3/9/15. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 3/6/15 and filed on 3/9/15. (tbro)

FILED
UNITED

STATES

EASTERN

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

OF

COURT

VIRGINIA

MAR -9 2015

Norfolk Division

ERA L.

CLI HK, US . iSIHiCl COURT
NO •' : -•• VA

CARTER,

Plaintiff

Civil No.

v.

UNITED

STATES

4:13cvll2

OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

This

matter

("Plaintiff")

is

before

Opposition

Plaintiff requests that
Federal

deny

of

Civil

Defendant's

below,
No.

Rule

63,

the

to

the

of

Court

on

Era

Defendant's

54(d)

Costs.

and

For

L.

Bill

Court exercise its

Procedure

Bill

ORDER

28

Carter's

of

Costs.

discretion under

U.S.C.

the

reasons

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's

Bill of

§

1920

set

and

forth

Costs,

ECF

is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff's

husband

("Decedent")

suffered

fatal

injuries

when he rear-ended a car operated by a United States government

contractor
interstate
morning

who

had

highway

darkness.

completely

in

a

The

construction workers if
ramp.
stopped

Approximately
his

contractor's

car,

60

m.p.h.

contractor

twenty-five

had

an

lane

stopped

illuminated

during

his

car

earlyto

ask

through a blocked off exit

seconds

collided

Though

on

through

he could pass

Decedent

vehicle.

stopped

both

after

with

were

the

the

contractor

back

relatively

of

the

close

questions,

this

Court

ultimately found at

the

conclusion of

a

bench trial that Decedent's negligence contributed to the crash
and that,

while Defendant's contractor was

"grossly negligent,"

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the contractor's negligence
rose to the level of "willful and wanton" negligence.
Federal

federal

Rule

of

statute,

otherwise,

Civil

these

Procedure

rules,

or

54

a

states

court

"[u]nless

order

a

provides

costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to

the prevailing party."

Fed.

R.

Civ. P.

costs are set forth in 28 U.S.C.

54(d)(1).

§ 1920,

Permissible

and such statute,

along

with Rule 54, creates a presumption that listed costs "are to be

awarded to

the

prevailing party"

Champion Int'l Corp.,

request for costs
"show

in

186 F.3d 442,

is challenged,

circumstances

sufficient

a

civil

446

case.

(4th Cir.

Cherry v.
1999).

the party opposing costs must
to

overcome

the

presumption

favoring an award of costs to the prevailing party."
Grant

Thornton

LLP,

(citing Teague

v.

Additionally,

the

434

F.

Bakker,
party

prerequisite of good faith.

App'x

35

If a

F.3d

232,

978,

opposing

235

996

costs

(4th

Ellis v.
Cir.

(4th Cir.
must

2011)

1994)).

meet

the

Teague, 35 F.3d at 996.

Addressing the standard for awarding or denying costs,
United States
that

district

prevailing

Court of
courts

party

for

Appeals
have

"good

the

for the Fourth Circuit has held

discretion

reason",

to

deny

costs

specifically,

to

"when

the

there

would be an element of
cost award."

Cherry,

the denial of
party;
(3)

(2)

costs

injustice

[or inequity]

186 F.3d at 446.

include:

"(1)

in a presumptive

Factors that may warrant

misconduct by the prevailing

the unsuccessful party's inability to pay the costs;

the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case;

limited

value

of

the

prevailing

party's

victory;

closeness and difficulty of the issues decided."
App'x at

235;

see Teague,

35

F.3d at

996-97

(4)

or

(5)

Ellis,

(holding

the

the

434

that

F.
the

district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the

plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of awarding costs due to the
plaintiffs'
means of

good faith,

the closeness of the outcome,

the unsuccessful party,

the modest

and the equities considered in

its analysis).
Here,

factors,

based

on

Plaintiff

this

Court's

the prerequisite of

prevailing party,

of

the

relevant

fails to overcome the presumption that costs

should be taxed in favor of

closely contested,

consideration

Defendant.

good faith,

she

Though Plaintiff meets

and has shown that the case was

did not point

to

any misconduct

by the

did not show that the costs are excessive,

and

did not show that she is unable to pay the costs.
The cost award of
reasonable on its
the

face,

$2,713.60 requested by Defendant appears
particularly in light

case proceeded to trial on the merits.

of

the

Plaintiff

fact

that

has

thus

failed to demonstrate that the requested costs are excessive in

nature.

Moreover,

Plaintiff fails to challenge any of the costs

as falling outside the listed costs taxable under § 1920.
Although

standpoint,

taxation
burden.

for

the

the

of

bankruptcy

debts,

are

costs

figure

are

low

from

an

that,

recognizes

dollar

for

some

individuals,

could

still

create

absolute

an

undue

Plaintiff does assert that she and Decedent filed

two

years

meager,

that

Decedent

Court

such

Here,

savings

requested

she

and now

before

that

could
lives

she

not
in a

his

is

death,

now

afford
rented

that

the

responsible

the

home

for

she

condominium

family's

unpaid

shared

with

her

with

brother

and son, and that a majority of her Social Security benefits go

toward

her

daily

acknowledge

subsistence.

that

her

However,

brother

now

pays

Plaintiff

a

share

appears

of

household

expenses that once fell entirely on Plaintiff and Decedent,
the

record

increase

demonstrates

in

Decedent's

her

modest

monthly

Plaintiff

Social

received

Security

a

and

$1,000

benefits

after

death.

Synthesizing

presented

that

to

this

generalized

means,

demonstrating

information,

information

Plaintiff

that,

has

based on

her

although

indicating

failed

current

to

Plaintiff

that

advance

income

she is unable to pay the $2,713.60 in costs.

she

is

has

of

evidence

and expenses,

Notably,

exempting

persons of modest means from paying court costs would create a

"perplexing exception to Rule 54(d)," given that

"the in forma

pauperis plaintiff

[]

adversary's costs"

447.

In

this

prevailing
party's

costs.

in
the

under 28

Court's

party

a

costs

view,

to

at 445,

the

cost

447

party

does

award

of

the

Cherry,

not

financial

prevailing
186

on

the

had

would

sufficient

personal needs and discretionary items,

absent

to pay the

be

to

a

requested
the $3,556

inequitable

money

the

opposing

hardship

(holding that a denial of

party

F.3d at

favor denying

based

actually unable

prevailing

unsuccessful

for paying

§ 1915.

equity

assertion

such party is

See id.

liable

U.S.C.

modest

generalized

showing that

remains

pay

because
for

her

and thus was able to pay

the costs).

For the
Defendant's

are

to

reasons
Bill

be

taxed

of

discussed above,
Costs

against

is

Plaintiff's Opposition to

OVERRULED,

Plaintiff

in

Order

to all

IT

IS

SO

is DIRECTED to

counsel

of

Defendant's

accordance

Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C.
The Clerk

and

with

costs

Federal

§ 1920.1

forward a

copy of

this Memorandum

record.

ORDERED.

hi
Mark
UNITED

Norfolk,

March

1 The

S.

STATES

Davis
DISTRICT

JUDGE

Virginia

(o
Court

, 2015
leaves

it

to

the

arrangements and for Defendant
they have been completely paid.

parties
to

file

to
a

make

their

Satisfaction of

own

payment

Costs

once