Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc.

Background

Mehmet Emin Tatas sued his former employer, Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., owner Ali Riza Dogan, and former coworkers Senol Bakir and Tolgahan Subakan. He alleged discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment based on race and national origin under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also asserted a common-law assault and battery claim against Dogan.

The case went to a jury trial from April 1 through April 9, 2024. The jury found for Defendants on the discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment claims. It found for Tatas on the assault and battery claim against Dogan and awarded him $2,500 in compensatory damages and $1 in nominal punitive damages, for a total recovery of $2,501.

Defendants’ request for costs

Before trial, on March 14, 2023, Defendants offered to allow Tatas to take judgment against Ali Baba’s on behalf of all Defendants for $77,500, plus costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees incurred through the offer date. Tatas did not accept the offer within the required 14 days.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, when a plaintiff rejects an offer and ultimately obtains a less favorable judgment, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs incurred after the offer. The Court held that Tatas’ $2,501 recovery was substantially less favorable than the $77,500 offer, so Defendants were entitled to recover their post-offer costs.

Defendants requested $21,042.04. The Court did not award $2,031.36 in private process-server costs because Defendants did not provide the information needed to determine whether those costs fell within the permitted limit. The Court also denied $125.73 for witness Aysel Mansley’s car service because Defendants did not provide documentation showing the distance traveled needed to calculate the allowable travel payment. The Court awarded $633.20 for witness Mursel Yalbuzdag’s documented economy-class flight. After these modifications, Defendants received $18,884.95.

Tatas’ request for costs

Tatas sought $25,833.75 under Rule 68. Because he had not made an offer of judgment, Rule 68 did not apply to his request. The Court nevertheless construed his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which generally allows a prevailing party to seek litigation costs. The Court also treated the motion as timely because Tatas was representing himself and his submissions were read under the more flexible standards applied to parties without lawyers.

The Court concluded that Tatas was the prevailing party on his assault and battery claim against Dogan. Rule 68 barred recovery of costs incurred after the March 14, 2023 offer, however. The Court identified $3,281.35 in allowable costs incurred before that date, including service, mail-related expenses, interpreter services, and certain electronic docket-access charges. It declined to reduce that amount further based on Tatas’ limited success on his other claims and declined to award unsupported printing and copying expenses or costs related to an earlier discovery dispute.

Disposition

Judge Ramos granted both Defendants’ and Tatas’ requests for costs, subject to the modifications described in the opinion. Defendants were awarded $18,884.95, and Tatas was awarded $3,281.35. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the two cost motions.