Lancaster v. Ocala Hospitality Group, LLC, 5:16-cv-00662

Ocala Hospitality Group, LLC operated two bars (Cowboys Saloon and The Colosseum) and used promotional images of ten professional models without their consent to advertise themed parties and drink specials.
Plaintiffs (models) sued asserting Lanham Act claims, Florida statutory and common-law right of publicity claims, FDUTPA, civil theft, unjust enrichment, and conversion; Defendant defaulted.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Court found Plaintiffs did not prove Lanham Act damages but awarded $222,500 under Fla. Stat. § 540.08 for unauthorized use of likeness.
The Court reserved ruling on attorneys’ fees and taxable costs and directed Plaintiffs to file a separate motion identifying entitlement and amounts.
Plaintiffs moved for $44,825 in attorneys’ fees and $9,909.27 in costs. The Court evaluated statutory entitlement to fees and whether each requested expense qualified as a taxable cost under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
The Court denied attorneys’ fees (no statutory basis identified) and awarded $1,125.42 in taxable costs (limited categories), disallowing travel, meals, and most expert compensation beyond the $40 witness fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to attorneys’ fees	Plaintiffs claimed fees (citing Fla. Stat. § 559.77(2)) without identifying statutory basis tied to their successful § 540.08 claim	Defendant defaulted; no substantive opposition on fees argued in opinion	Denied — Plaintiffs failed to identify a statute or contract authorizing fees for their § 540.08 recovery; § 559.77(2) inapplicable because no FCCPA claim was pleaded
Taxable costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920	Sought $9,909.27 for filing, service, printing, travel, expert fees, and other expenses	Defaulted; no substantive opposition to specific cost items in record	Partial award — $1,125.42 awarded (filing fee, service fee, printing, and $40 expert attendance fee). Travel, meals, most expert compensation, and other items disallowed as non-taxable under § 1920 and Eleventh Circuit precedent

United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 289 F.3d 741 (11th Cir. 2002) (Florida law generally governs fee-shifting in absence of statute or contract)
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1987) (28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines taxable costs under Rule 54(d))
Parkes v. Hall, 906 F.2d 658 (11th Cir. 1990) (limitations on taxing expert witness compensation; only statutory attendance fee recoverable)
Kivi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 695 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir. 1983) (additional expert fees generally not taxable as costs)
Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2001) (strong presumption in favor of awarding costs under Rule 54(d))
Chapman v. Al Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (district court must articulate sound reason to deny full costs)
E.E.O.C. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000) (court may tax only costs authorized by statute)
Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994) (burden on party seeking costs to itemize and justify each requested expense)