Raydo v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-10919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Raydo v. City of New York, Judge Cote denied defendants’ $1,041.80 costs application because plaintiffs showed limited financial resources.
The ruling affected Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang by denying the City of New York and the other defendants’ request to recover $1,041.80 in litigation costs from them.
What happened
In Raydo v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to make the plaintiffs pay $1,041.80 in litigation costs after the defendants prevailed in the case.
The request included $1,021.80 for deposition transcripts and $20 in docket fees. The plaintiffs opposed it, presenting information that both had recently undergone significant surgeries and had limited ability to seek paid work because of their medical conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Denise Cote denied the application. She ruled that, although costs are generally awarded to the winning party, imposing them here would be unfair because of the plaintiffs’ limited financial resources.
The detailed version
- Raydo v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-10919
- Denise Cote
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
This opinion concerns the defendants’ request for litigation costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The underlying case was a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously granted summary judgment for the defendants, and judgment was entered on May 21, 2020. The plaintiffs’ motion asking the court to reconsider that ruling was later denied. The plaintiffs then appealed, but the Second Circuit allowed them to withdraw the appeal and issued its mandate on November 12, 2020.
The defendants applied on December 14, 2020, for $1,041.80 in costs: $1,021.80 for deposition transcripts and $20 in docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923. The plaintiffs opposed the application and submitted an attorney declaration concerning their health and financial condition. The court gave the defendants an opportunity to seek information confirming those representations and ordered any further submission supporting the costs request by January 21, 2021. The court received no further submission from the defendants.
Legal Standard
Rule 54(d)(1) generally provides that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party. The court explained, however, that the rule permits a court to refuse to impose costs. The losing party bears the burden of showing why costs should not be imposed, and denial may be appropriate when that party has limited financial resources. The court has equitable discretion, meaning it may consider fairness when deciding whether to award costs.
Court’s Analysis
The plaintiffs did not dispute that the defendants were the prevailing parties. The court found that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing that costs should not be imposed. Their counsel stated, without contradiction from the defendants, that both plaintiffs had recently undergone significant surgeries requiring lengthy recoveries. Counsel also stated that both plaintiffs had severely limited ability to seek paid employment because of their medical conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that awarding costs would be inequitable given the plaintiffs’ limited financial resources.
Disposition
Judge Denise Cote denied the defendants’ December 14, 2020 application for costs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.