Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
FIGUEROA v. CITY OF NEW YORK
April 13, 2005.
MARILYN FIGUEROA, Plaintiff,
CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, and ROCKY DARMIENTO, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants have moved to renew their application for costs
against plaintiff Marilyn Figueroa under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d). Plaintiff has not filed a timely objection to
this motion. Nonetheless, defendants' motion for costs is denied.
The decision whether to award costs to a prevailing party under
Rule 54(d) lies within the sound discretion of the district
court. See LoSacca v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d
Cir. 1995) (citing Farmer v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227,
232-33 (1964)); Cosgrove v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 191 F.3d 98,
101-02 (2d Cir. 1999). "A court need not award costs if it finds
that such an award would be inequitable. Among the factors which
may be considered in making this decision are plaintiff's
indigency or financial hardship and plaintiff's good faith in bringing the action." Bekiaris v. United States,
No. 96 Civ. 302, 1998 WL 734362, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 1998)
Finally, Local Rule 54.1 provides that "[a] party objecting to
any cost item [contained in an adversary's bill of costs] shall
serve objections in writing prior to or at the time for taxation
. . . In the absence of written objection, any item listed may be
taxed within the discretion of the clerk." Local Rule 54.1(b).
However, the fact that plaintiff has not objected to defendants'
renewed motion does not prevent this Court from denying costs.
Plaintiff timely objected when the motion for costs was
originally brought. Whether plaintiff's original objection can be
renewed sua sponte for purposes of this motion need not be
addressed. A district court has the inherent power to depart from
its Local Rules when such a departure is warranted. See Somlyo
v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1048 (2d Cir. 1991).
Therefore, considering the financial hardship the imposition of
costs would impose on plaintiff and the fact that plaintiff
brought this action in good faith, I deny defendants' renewed
motion for costs. See Brodie v. Pressley, No. 95 Civ. 1197,
1999 WL 691960, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1999) ("[T]he Court has
determined that costs should not be taxed against plaintiff, and
so his non-compliance with Rule 54.1 will not bar relief."). The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Document #
42). SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For