Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
679 F. App'x 979
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Fane Lozman sued the City of Riviera Beach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; after trial the jury found for the City on all claims.
- The district court taxed costs to the City as the prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
- Lozman appealed only the costs award (he separately appealed the merits and lost); he argued the court should have denied costs despite the jury verdict.
- Lozman contended his claims survived summary judgment, he litigated in good faith, the case was close, and the City engaged in litigation misconduct—reasons to overcome the presumption in favor of costs.
- The City sought statutory taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including service of process, deposition and trial transcripts, witness fees, and copying/exemplification costs.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s award of costs in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by awarding costs to the City as prevailing party | Lozman: despite verdict, court should deny costs because he litigated in good faith, claims survived summary judgment, case was close, and there was alleged misconduct | City: prevailing party is presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 54(d); district court should award taxable costs | Affirmed—district court did not abuse its discretion; Lozman’s reasons did not overcome the presumption in favor of costs |
| Whether service-of-process fees were taxable without a necessity showing | Lozman: implied challenge to necessity or amount | City: service costs are taxable per § 1920(1) without showing necessity | Affirmed—service costs fully taxable under § 1920(1) |
| Whether deposition and transcript fees were taxable as "necessarily obtained for use in the case" | Lozman: objected to some deposition/transcript costs as unnecessary | City: transcripts were necessary for use in the case (trial preparation, state eviction record, trial transcript) | Affirmed—district court did not clearly err in finding transcripts were necessarily obtained and taxable under § 1920(2) |
| Whether witness fees and copying/exemplification costs were taxable | Lozman: some subpoenaed witnesses did not testify; copying/electronic exhibit costs excessive or unsupported | City: costs to secure witnesses are taxable even if witnesses not called; copying of trial exhibits is taxable and documentation was sufficient | Affirmed—witness securing costs and copy/exemplification costs were properly taxed; documentation adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (establishes presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing party and requires district court to state sound basis to deny costs)
- Tech. Res. Servs., Inc. v. Dornier Med. Sys., Inc., 134 F.3d 1458 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard of review: award of costs reviewed for clear abuse of discretion)
- Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion occurs when factual findings underlying cost award are clearly erroneous)
- Murphy v. City of Flagler Beach, 761 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1985) (costs to secure witnesses may be taxable even if witness ultimately did not testify)
- Cullens v. Georgia Dep’t of Transp., 29 F.3d 1489 (11th Cir. 1994) (copy costs for trial exhibits may be taxable when adequately documented)