United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR TAXATION OF
PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
partial summary judgment, Doc. 61, and a jury verdict, Doc.
136, the clerk entered final judgment in favor of CSX
Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”), and against Steven
Barfield, Doc. 138. Before the Court is CSXT's motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) to allow
$8796.51 in costs against Barfield. Docs. 139, 139-1,
CSXT filed the motion, the Court allowed Barfield's
counsel to withdraw and directed Barfield to file any
response by May 12, 2017. See Docs. 148, 149. He did
not file a response.
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) codifies the
“venerable presumption that prevailing parties are
entitled to costs.” Marx v. Gen. Rev. Corp.,
133 S.Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013). It provides costs “should
be allowed to the prevailing party” unless federal law
or a court order provides otherwise. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1).
to award costs ultimately lies within the sound discretion of
the district court.” Marx, 133 S.Ct. at 1172.
But if a court exercises its discretion to deny full costs,
it “must have and state a sound basis.”
Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (11th
Cir. 2000) (en banc).
U.S.C. § 1920 limits a district court's discretion
under Rule 54(d)(1) by listing costs a court may allow.
Maris Distr. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d
1207, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). They are:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies
of any materials where the copies are 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 under section 1828 of this
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
1920 reflects congressional policy to place “rigid
controls on cost-shifting in federal courts.”
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 444 (1987). “[A]s is evident from § 1920,
” costs are “limited to relatively minor,
incidental expenses, ” and “almost always amount
to less than the successful litigant's total expenses in
connection with a lawsuit.” Taniguchi v.
Kan.Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 132 S.Ct. 1997, 2006 (2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
proposed by winning parties as costs should always be given
careful scrutiny.” Farmer v. Arabian Am. Oil
Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 (1964), disapproved of on
another ground by Crawford, 482 U.S. at 443. Once the
prevailing party has shown the requested costs are allowed
under § 1920, the losing party must rebut the
presumption favoring their award. Manor Healthcare Corp.
v. Lomelo, 929 F.2d 633, 639 (11th Cir. 1991). ...