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.

Lucas v. Shively

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

May 5, 2015

RYAN STILLMAN LUCAS, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY L. SHIVELY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendants Gary Shively's ("Shively) and Patrick Lamb's ("Lamb") bills of costs. Dkt. Nos. 81 and 82. Plaintiff Ryan Lucas ("Lucas") filed an objection to the bills of costs arguing on multiple grounds that the costs are not eligible for recovery. Dkt. No. 83. The parties did not request oral argument, so the court will rule on the papers filed. For the reasons that follow, the court will DENY the defendants' bills of costs.

I.

Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a prevailing party to recover costs other than attorney's fees "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). This rule "creates a presumption that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party." Cherry v. Champion Int'l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). However, a non-prevailing party may "show circumstances sufficient to overcome" this presumption. Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP, 434 F.Appx. 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994)). Factors that justify denying an award of costs include: "(1) misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the unsuccessful party's inability to pay the costs; (3) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case; (4) the limited value of the prevailing party's victory; or (5) the closeness and difficulty of the issues decided." Id . (citing Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446). A district court must "articulate some good reason" for a denial of costs. Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446 (internal citations omitted).

II.

Lucas claims the defendants' bills of costs should be denied because the bills are not properly verified, this case involved close and difficult issues, he is unable to pay costs, the bills are untimely, and some of the costs are not eligible for recovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

A.

Lucas argues the bills of costs should be denied because they lack the proper verification required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924. Section 1924 requires that an attorney filing a bill of costs "shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by his duly authorized attorney... that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case...." Lucas directs the court to Volvo Trademark Holding Antiebolaget v. CLM Equip. Co., Nos. 1:00cv238, 1:01cv232, 2008 WL 2669289 (W.D. N.C. Jun. 27, 2008) to support his claim that the bills of costs are not properly verified because they lack affidavits. The Volvo court ruled that the declaration section found on the court's bill of costs form does not satisfy § 1924's affidavit requirement. Id. at *3.[1] Several courts of appeals agree with this interpretation of § 1924. See Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 779-80 (8th Cir. 2014); Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673, 681 (10th Cir. 2012); Wahl v. Carrier Mfg. Co., Inc., 511 F.2d 209, 216 (7th Cir. 1975). These courts read § 1924 as leaving "no room for discretion" even when a prevailing party files a bill of costs form. Reece, 760 F.3d at 779. Notably, defendants have not even attempted to correct this oversight despite plaintiff's calling it to their attention. See Morrissey v. Cnty. Tower Corp., 568 F.Supp. 980, 981 (E.D. Mo. 1983).

The Volvo court's ruling, however, is at odds with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Section 1746 provides that

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
....
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

See also Trammell Real Estate Corp. v. Trammell, 748 F.2d 1516, 1518 (11th Cir. 1984) (district court abused its discretion in disallowing costs because signed and dated declaration in bill of costs was substantially similar to § 1746's permissible substitute, and "accuracy of incurred costs [was] achieved despite the lack of a separate affidavit.") In accordance with § 1724, the Fourth Circuit has given a letter "declared that it was true under penalty of perjury... the status of an affidavit" in the summary judgment context. United States v. Arlington Cnty., Va., 702 F.2d 485, 490 (4th Cir. 1983). If a witness's declaration serves as admissible evidence for purposes of summary judgment, surely an attorney's sworn declaration as to the costs incurred in a civil action satisfies the requirements of section 1924. The statement provided on AO 133 for filing a bill of costs is substantially similar to the language in § 1746(2). Under § 1746, such a declaration may serve as a substitute wherever any "law of ...


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.