Buford v. Ammar's Inc.

Filing 101

OPINION AND ORDER Denying 89 Objections to Bill of Costs; Granting Defendants Bill of Costs 87 ; directing the clerk to tax the costs as requested. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 3/28/2016 (lml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

RONALD G. BUFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMMAR’S INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:14CV00012
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Terry N. Grimes and Brittany M. Haddox, Terry N. Grimes, Esq., P.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Plaintiff; Michael N. Petkovich and Meredith F. Bergeson,
Jackson Lewis P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Defendant.
The losing plaintiff in this employment discrimination case has objected to
the Bill of Costs filed by the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d)(1). For the reasons explained below, I will overrule the objection and grant
the Bill of Costs.
I.
The plaintiff filed this action alleging that his employer Ammar’s Inc.
discriminated against him on the basis of his race and age. The plaintiff claimed
that his hours had been cut for discriminatory reasons.

Ammar’s moved for

summary judgment which I granted and which was affirmed on appeal. Buford v.
Ammar’s, Inc., No. 1:14CV00012, 2015 WL 412896, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 30,

2015), aff’d, No. 15-1228, 2016 WL 758031 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2016)
(unpublished). The defendant seeks costs in the amount of $1,320.75, relating to
the costs of depositions taken in the case.
II.
“Under Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, costs ‘should
be allowed to the prevailing party’ unless a federal statute provides otherwise.”
Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 636 (4th Cir. 2010). There is thus a
presumption of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Cherry v. Champion
Int'l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999); Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996
(4th Cir. 1994). Costs may be refused only if the district court “justif[ies] its
decision by ‘articulating some good reason for doing so.’” Teague, 35 F.3d at 996
(quoting Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d
291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990)). Costs can be denied based on “(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.”
Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP, 434 F. App'x 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
The plaintiff cites to Musick v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., No.
1:11CV00005, 2012 WL 473994, at *1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2012) and Green v.
Winchester Med. Ctr., No. 5:13CV00064, 2015 WL 247871, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan.
-2-

20, 2015), two of my previous decisions, to argue that costs are inappropriate
because of his modest income.

The plaintiff points to his reduced hours as

evidence that he is unable to pay.
In Musick, the defendant sought costs totaling $51,237.47.

2012 WL

473994 at *1. The plaintiff was a child from a low-income family who had been
injured so badly that it was estimated to take $9 million to care for her throughout
her life. Id. In Green, the defendants sought costs totaling $24,336.21 against a
plaintiff who worked at a grocery store and had suffered a serious injury to her
hand which limited her ability to work. 2015 WL 247871 at *1, 3. Here, the
plaintiff’s situation is less dire, and the costs requested are only a fraction of what
was sought in those other cases.

Thus, I do not believe that the plaintiff’s

relatively low income justifies denying costs. See Cherry, 186 F.3d at 447-48
(holding that a party of even modest means may be required to pay costs). The
plaintiff is employed, and while his income is modest, so are the costs sought by
Ammar’s.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Objections to Bill of
Costs (ECF No. 89) are DENIED and Defendant’s Bill of Costs (ECF No. 87) is
GRANTED. The clerk shall tax the costs as requested.

-3-

ENTER: March 28, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-4-