Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hamidi v. City of Kirksville

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

November 4, 2016

AMIR HAMIDI, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          E. RICHARD WEBBER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri, David Jacobs, Mike LaBeth, Mari MacComber, Bob Russel, Brad Selby, and Clark Wilson's (“Defendants”) Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 118] and Defendants' Combined Motion for Attorneys' Fees as the Prevailing Party [ECF No. 123].

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Amir Hamidi (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit against Defendants alleging Defendants discriminated against him in determining his property could be rezoned from residential to commercial with restrictions. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims on July 22, 2016. Defendants now seek to recover costs and attorneys' fees from Plaintiff.

         II. ANALYSIS

         a. Bill of Costs

         Defendants, as the prevailing party, requests the Court award it costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 54(d)(1) for transcript and deposition costs of $2, 209.21. Defendants assert Plaintiff's deposition was reasonably necessary for trial. Plaintiff argues federal statute 42 U.S.C. §1988 trumps Rule 54(d)(1) and does not allow deposition or copying costs. According to Plaintiff, the Supreme Court, in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 832-33 (2011), held an award of fees is only available on a showing Plaintiff's claims were frivolous. Finally, Plaintiff asserts, even if costs are available, the Court should not award them because Defendants did not need to reasonably take the deposition of Plaintiff. In reply, Defendants claim the federal statute in question is not contrary to Rule 54(d)(1), as the Supreme Court held in Marx v. General Revenue Corporation, 133 S.Ct. 1166 (2013).

         Under FRCP 54, “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). “A prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its costs.” In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir.2005). “The losing party bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to costs . . .” 168th & Dodge, LP v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC, 501 F.3d 945, 958 (8th Cir. 2007). If the opposing party objects to the authorized costs, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant or deny costs. Pershern v. Fiatallis N. Am., Inc., 834 F.2d 136, 140 (8th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, costs may be taxed for:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.