Nahal v. Allina Health System
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-00631
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Nahal v. Allina, Judge Frank denied Nahal’s request to undo a $1,838.35 cost judgment and affirmed the judgment in full.
Armon Nahal must pay the affirmed $1,838.35 cost judgment to Allina.
What happened
In Nahal v. Allina Health Services, the court reviewed a clerk’s decision requiring Armon Nahal to pay Allina $1,838.35 for costs related to his deposition. Allina had previously won summary judgment, and the court had dismissed Nahal’s claims with prejudice.
Nahal argued that the deposition was not necessary because the court’s earlier decision cited only a small portion of the transcript. He also argued that paying the costs would cause financial hardship because he was unemployed and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying court fees. Allina argued that Nahal had waited too long to object and that the deposition was necessary to defend the case.
The court considered Nahal’s arguments despite the timing of his objection, but affirmed the cost judgment in full and denied his motion. Judge Donovan W. Frank ruled that the deposition was necessarily obtained for use in the case and that Nahal had not provided evidence showing that the judgment was unfair.
The detailed version
- Nahal v. Allina Health System · No. 0:18-cv-00631
- Donovan Frank
- July 30, 2021
Background
The court considered Armon Nahal’s motion to review the clerk’s cost judgment. In an earlier stage of the case, Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez recommended granting summary judgment for the defendants and dismissing all of Nahal’s claims with prejudice. This court adopted that recommendation on February 20, 2020, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on April 1, 2021.
Afterward, Allina filed a bill of costs seeking $1,889.85 for fees connected to deposing Nahal. Nahal did not object before the clerk entered judgment. The clerk denied $51.50 in handling and delivery fees and entered a cost judgment for $1,838.35 in favor of Allina. Nahal timely moved for court review of that judgment.
Arguments
Nahal argued that the deposition costs should not be taxed because the deposition was not necessary to Allina’s defense. He noted that the earlier recommendation cited fewer than 20 pages of a deposition transcript exceeding 250 pages. He asked the court to deny all deposition-related fees or limit the taxable amount to $115 for the pages and court-reporter fee he considered appropriate.
Nahal also argued that the cost judgment would cause financial hardship because he was unemployed and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying court fees. Allina argued that Nahal waived his objections by failing to object on time. Allina further argued that the deposition was important to its success on summary judgment and that Nahal had submitted no evidence supporting his hardship claim.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), a prevailing party may generally recover allowable costs, including fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case. The court has substantial discretion over cost awards, and the party challenging the award must show that it is unfair under the circumstances.
Because it was unclear when Nahal obtained counsel, the court gave him the benefit of the doubt and considered his motion on its merits despite his late objections. The court nevertheless found that the deposition was necessarily obtained for use in the case. It also stated that the deposition could have been necessary to prepare for trial and establish other evidence had the case continued.
The court rejected Nahal’s hardship argument. His prior permission to proceed without paying court fees did not prevent a later cost judgment, and he provided no evidence or documentation showing that the $1,838.35 judgment would create financial hardship. The court also rejected the argument that Allina’s greater resources made the judgment unfair.
Disposition
The court denied Nahal’s Motion to Review Clerk’s Cost Judgment. It affirmed the cost judgment in favor of Allina Health System against Nahal in the full amount of $1,838.35.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.