United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BILL COSTS,
M. SIMONTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for
Bill of Costs, ECF No. . The Plaintiff has filed a
Response in opposition to the Motion, ECF No. . The
Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, has referred the Motion to
the undersigned, ECF No. . Based upon a thorough review
of the record and for the following reasons, the Motion is
GRANTED IN PART, and costs are awarded to the Defendant in
the amount of $2, 818.45 for taxable costs incurred in this
matter was initiated when Plaintiff Ana Garcia filed a
four-count Complaint against her former employer ALS
Education, Inc., d/b/a Accelerated Learning Solutions
(“ALS”), in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit In and For Miami-Dade County, Florida, ECF
No. . The Complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19
(“FLSA”), including retaliation claims, and
alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29
U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., (“FMLA”),
ECF No. [1-1]. After the Defendant removed the action to this
Court, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
FMLA claims, as well as her claim for FLSA retaliation, ECF
No. . The Court granted that Motion and dismissed the
FMLA claims, and the FLSA retaliation claim, leaving
Plaintiff's FLSA claims for unpaid wages and liquidated
damages to be litigated by the Parties, ECF No. .
on July 21, 2017, the Court granted Defendant ALS' Motion
for Summary Judgment and Final Judgment was entered on behalf
of ALS, ECF Nos.  . Defendant then filed the instant
Motion for Bill of Costs seeking to recover $2, 963.45 in
costs incurred in this matter, ECF No. . In support of
its request, the Defendant has submitted a Memorandum of Law
and receipts for the costs that the Defendant seeks to
recover, ECF No. [91-1]. The Plaintiff filed a response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion, ECF No. .
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), a prevailing party is entitled to
recover costs as a matter of course unless directed otherwise
by a court or statute. A court may tax as costs those
expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 445 (1987) (absent explicit statutory or contractual
authorization, federal courts are bound by the limitations
set out in § 1920). “To defeat the presumption and
deny full costs, a district court must have a sound basis for
doing so.” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d
1012, 1039 (11th Cir. 2000). The court should not take into
consideration the relative wealth of the parties, as it would
undermine the presumption that Rule 54(d)(1) creates in favor
of the prevailing parties. Id.
is no contention in the case at bar that there is a basis for
reducing costs that fall within the scope of section 1920.
The following discussion analyzes the taxable costs pursuant
to this statute.
Fees of the Clerk
Bill of Costs, the Defendant first seeks to recover four
hundred dollars ($400.00) paid to the Clerk of Court for
removal of this matter to the Southern District of Florida,
ECF No. [91-1] at 2.
1920(1) authorizes fees of the clerk as costs, and a
“removal fee is unquestionably a fee of the
clerk.” Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of
Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 11197752, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Dec. 29, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No.
14-60268-CIV, 2016 WL 3944034 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)
(internal citation omitted); Nelson v. North Broward Med.
Cntr, No. 12-61867-CIV, 2014 WL 2195157, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. May 27, 2014) (removal fee is taxable). In light of the
law and Plaintiff's failure to challenge Defendant's
request for the removal fee, the undersigned awards Defendant
four hundred dollars ($400.00) for this cost. See
E.E.O.C. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 621 (11th
Cir. 2000) (finding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by taxing unchallenged costs).
Fees for Deposition and Deposition Transcripts
Defendant seeks to recover costs in the amount of $2, 563.45
associated with conducting depositions in the case.
Specifically, Defendant seeks to recover $1, 645.55 for the
cost of the Plaintiff's deposition, and further seeks
$908.90 for the costs for the depositions of three of the
Defendant's employees, ECF No.  at 2.
Eleventh Circuit, deposition transcripts are generally
taxable as long as they were “necessarily obtained for
use in the case.” E.E.O.C., 213 F.3d at,
620-21. District courts have wide latitude in determining
whether a deposition was necessary but the general rule is
that “a deposition is considered to be necessary if it
was related to an issue that was present in the case when the