Melendez v. County Of Westchester
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-09637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Melendez v. County of Westchester, Judge Roman vacated the $1,788.15 bill of costs because Michelle Melendez showed financial hardship.
Michelle Melendez was relieved of the $1,788.15 bill of costs for deposition transcripts. The defendants did not receive those taxed costs, and the Clerk was directed to vacate the Bill of Costs.
What happened
In Melendez v. County of Westchester, the court considered Michelle Melendez’s challenge to a bill of costs issued after the court granted the defendants summary judgment and dismissed her claims. The Clerk had taxed $1,788.15 for deposition transcripts.
Melendez opposed the costs, stating that she was unemployed, received less than $400 per week in unemployment benefits, had less than $600 in her bank account, owed more than $8,000 in credit-card debt, and had about $3,000 in monthly expenses. The defendants did not dispute those facts but argued that the court should consider her partner’s income and funds potentially available through her contingent-fee lawyers.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Melendez’s motion to vacate the Clerk’s Bill of Costs and directed the Clerk to vacate it. The court found that, although Melendez lost her claims, the case was not pursued in bad faith and taxing costs would be inequitable because of her financial hardship.
The detailed version
- Melendez v. County Of Westchester · No. 7:17-cv-09637
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 27, 2021
Background
On February 8, 2021, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Michelle Melendez’s claims and the action. The Clerk then entered judgment. The defendants filed a bill of costs seeking $1,818.15 for deposition transcripts. The Clerk later issued a Bill of Costs/Notice of Taxation for $1,788.15.
Melendez opposed the taxation of costs and submitted a declaration describing financial hardship. The court treated her opposition and a later letter as a motion to vacate the Clerk’s Bill of Costs. The defendants opposed that motion.
Parties’ Positions
Melendez stated that she was unemployed, received less than $400 per week in unemployment benefits, had less than $600 in her bank account, had more than $8,000 in credit-card debt, and had average monthly expenses of $3,000.
The defendants did not dispute those facts. They argued that Melendez’s financial declaration was incomplete because she lived with a partner of nine years who earned approximately $90,000 annually. They also argued that the court should consider funds potentially available from the Derek Smith Law Group, which had represented Melendez on a contingent-fee basis.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally allows costs other than attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, but it also permits a court to refuse to impose costs. The court explained that denial of costs may be appropriate when the losing party demonstrates limited financial resources. The district court has equitable discretion to award or deny costs.
Ruling
The court found that Melendez had not pursued the action in bad faith, even though she did not prevail on her claims. It acknowledged that courts may consider sources of funds other than the losing party, including funds potentially available from the party’s attorney, but stated that courts are not required to impose costs from those sources.
The court held that, in light of the uncontested evidence that Melendez was unemployed and experiencing financial hardship, it would be inequitable to tax costs against her. The court therefore granted Melendez’s motion to vacate the Clerk’s Bill of Costs and directed the Clerk to vacate the bill at ECF No. 86.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.