United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER ON MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff ICool USA,
Inc.'s (“ICool” or “Plaintiff”)
Bill of Costs, ECF No. , and Memorandum in Support of
Bill of Costs, ECF No. [90-2] (together, “Bill of
Costs”). The Court has reviewed the Bill of Costs, the
record in this case and the applicable law, and is otherwise
fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Bill of
Costs is granted.
initiated this action on October 5, 2018, and filed the First
Amended Complaint, ECF No.  (“Amended
Complaint”), on January 18, 2019, alleging claims
against Defendants MBRB Sales, LLC (“MBRB”),
William Sands (“Sands”), and BYS Wholesalers, LLC
(“BYS”). ICool dismissed its claims against MBRB,
ECF No. , and then sought a default judgment against
Sands and BYS. ECF No. . The Court granted ICool's
motion for a default judgment, ECF No. , following a
Clerk's Default, ECF Nos.  and , entered as to
each Defendant. The record reflects that neither Defendant
filed an answer or otherwise plead to the Amended Complaint
after being properly served. Thereafter, the Court entered a
final default judgment in favor of ICool and against BYS and
Sands. See ECF No. . ICool now seeks to recover
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that
“[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 “[a] party
in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the
amount of damages awarded.” Buckhannon Bd. &
Care Home, Inc. v. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human
Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001); see Util. Automation
2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Coop., 298 F.3d 1238,
1248 (11th Cir. 2002). A prevailing party is “entitled
to receive all costs that are recoverable under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920.” Bryant v. Cab Asset Mgmt., LLC,
2011 WL 1331267, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2011). “Such
costs, however, may not exceed those permitted.”
Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1277 (11th Cir.
2007) (citing Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch,
Inc., 302 F.3d 1207, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002)); see
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 441-42 (1987).
28 U.S.C. § 1920, a judge may tax as costs the
(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 witnesses;
(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. Unless otherwise prohibited,
“[a] prevailing party may recover costs as a matter of
course”; “the losing party bears the burden of
demonstrating that a cost is not taxable, unless knowledge
regarding the proposed cost is within the exclusive control
of the prevailing party.” Monelus v. Tocodrian,
Inc., 609 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1332-33 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
(internal citations omitted).
prevailing party, ICool seeks an award of $1, 812.30 as
taxable costs incurred in this case. See ECF No.
. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, a bill of costs must
include documentation showing the amount of costs and a
supporting memorandum. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(c). Specifically,
ICool seeks reimbursement for deposition transcripts ($1,
288.30), filing fees ($400.00), and the cost of
service of process ($124.00). In support of its request,
ICool attaches the Declaration of Diana N. Evans, ECF No.
[90-1], and associated payment records. Based upon a review
of the materials submitted by ICool, the Court finds that the
requested costs are reasonable and recoverable. See
Monelus, 609 F.Supp.2d at 1338 (“Under the
statute, recoverable costs include deposition transcript
costs and attendance fees of the court reporter per
diem.”) (citing Ferguson v. Bombardier Serv.
Corp., 2007 WL 601921, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21 2007));
Goodman v. Sperduti Enterps., Inc., No.
08-62096-CIV, 2009 WL 3200681, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2009)
(“There is no question that Plaintiff is entitled to
the cost of the filing fee because it falls into one of the
categories of reimbursable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
. . . .”); EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d
600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000) (concluding that ...