United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division
SUSI EMERITA PELKA, as the Surviving Spouse and Personal Representative of the Estate of JEFFERY DAVID PELKA, Deceased, Plaintiff,
CITY OF WAYCROSS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court is Defendant City of Waycross, Georgia's Bill
of Costs (Doc. 136) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Continuance of Taxing of Costs (Doc. 140). On March 21, 2019,
Defendant filed a Bill of Costs seeking $5, 164.71, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (Doc. 136.) The day
before, however, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit seeking review of this Court's September
29, 2018 Order dismissing her claims against Defendant. (Doc.
134.) Because of the pending appeal, Plaintiff moves to
continue the taxing of costs until after the Eleventh Circuit
Plaintiff's Motion to Continue
Court is vested with discretion to continue the taxing of
costs until a pending appeal is resolved. See Estate of
Pidcock By and Through Pidcock v. Sunnyland Am., Inc.,
726 F.Supp. 1322, 1341 (S.D. Ga. 1989) (granting a
continuance while the case was on appeal "in the
interests of judicial economy''); Terrell v.
Paulding Cty., 2012 WL 12898009, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 5,
2012) (denying a continuance to avoid the "possibility
of a piecemeal appeal"). Other courts have recognized
that promptly ruling on a bill of costs avoids piecemeal
appeals and thereby promotes judicial economy. See In re
Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 4343286, at *1
(N.D. 111. Sept. 2, 2014) (prompt action on a bill of costs
allows the issue to "be consolidated with the appeal on
the merits and heard at the same time"); Allen v.
City of Chi., 2016 WL 1070828, at *2 (N.D. 111. Mar. 16,
2016). Finally, a notice of appeal does not deprive the Court
of jurisdiction to tax costs. See Rothenberg v. Sec.
Mgmt. Co., 677 F.2d 64, 64 (11th Cir. 1982).
Court finds that delaying the taxing of costs until after
resolution of Plaintiff's appeal would not promote
judicial economy. Rather, it would open up the possibility of
a piecemeal appeal and further prolong this litigation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to continue taxing costs
Defendant's Bill of Costs
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) allows the Court to award costs
to the prevailing party. The costs that may be taxed against
a non-prevailing party are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920
(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; and
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services under section 1828 of this
power to tax costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) is not an expansive
one; rather, "absent explicit statutory or contractual
authorization . . . federal courts are bound by the
limitations set out in ... 28 U.S.C. § 1920."
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 445 (1987). Consequently, the Court may not tax any cost
unless it falls within one of the categories enumerated by
the statute. Id. While the Court retains discretion
to deny costs to a prevailing party, the presumption is ...