Ortiz v. N.H. Inc., 1:17-cv-20169

Plaintiffs Ortiz and Robleto filed an FLSA suit alleging unpaid overtime for multi-year periods and voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on September 27, 2017.
The Court conditioned any future re-filing on Plaintiffs paying Defendants’ taxable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred defending the action and ordered Plaintiffs to preserve requested discovery.
On December 5, 2017 the Court awarded Defendants $16,867.50 in attorneys’ fees if Plaintiffs re-file, but denied Defendants’ $1,074.70 in costs on procedural grounds under Local Rule 7.3(c).
Defendants moved for reconsideration arguing the denial was erroneous because the voluntary dismissal without prejudice was not a final or appealable order and thus the bill-of-costs requirement did not apply.
Defendants sought costs for deposition-related expenses (court reporter, transcript, translator); Plaintiffs argued the depositions were unnecessary because they had notified Defendants they would not attend.
The Court granted reconsideration, found Defendants were entitled to the $1,074.70 in costs because they complied with court orders and incurred the expenses while reasonably preparing for court-ordered discovery, and amended its prior order to require Plaintiffs to pay both fees and costs before permitting re-filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Local Rule 7.3(c) required Defendants to file a bill of costs after Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal without prejudice	Local Rule should bar costs because depositions were unnecessary; procedural grounds support denying costs	Rule 7.3(c) applies only to final judgments or appealable orders; voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable so bill-of-costs timing does not apply	Court held dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable order; bill-of-costs requirement did not bar Defendants’ motion for costs
Whether deposition costs were recoverable given Plaintiffs’ nonattendance	Plaintiffs: depositions unnecessary; costs should be denied	Defendants: costs were incurred to comply with court orders; no court excuse excusing attendance; costs reasonable	Court found costs were reasonably incurred in complying with discovery orders and awarded $1,074.70 in costs
Whether reconsideration was appropriate	Plaintiffs implied prior ruling should stand	Defendants sought reconsideration based on error of law/application of local rule	Court granted reconsideration as correcting a procedural oversight and reached the merits
Effect on prior fee award	Plaintiffs: prior fee award stands without costs	Defendants: prior award should include costs	Court amended prior order to include $1,074.70 in costs in addition to $16,867.50 in attorneys’ fees

Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (grounds justifying reconsideration summarized)
Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (reconsideration standards and authority)
Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (motion to reconsider improper to relitigate or ask court to rethink its ruling)
Versa Prod., Inc. v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 387 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable)
LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976) (voluntary dismissal without prejudice distinguished from involuntary adverse judgment)