Rowell v. City Of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-06598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rowell v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied Rowell’s request to vacate $4,828.01 in costs but stayed collection for 30 days.
Hozie Rowell remains subject to the $4,828.01 costs award under the opinion’s main ruling, although collection is stayed for 30 days to allow discussion of a payment plan. The defendants are entitled to the assessed costs under that ruling, subject to the stay and the opinion’s internally inconsistent concluding language.
What happened
In Rowell v. City of New York, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants after a four-day trial. The defendants then requested $4,994.89 in costs, and the Clerk awarded them $4,828.01. Rowell asked the court to cancel that costs award, arguing that paying it would be unfair because he was indigent.
The court recognized that costs are ordinarily awarded to the winning party but may be denied when fairness requires. It accepted that Rowell had litigated in good faith and noted that he received $770 per month in Supplemental Security Income and earned $15 per hour, though he was limited to working more than 20 hours per week and rarely worked that much. The court concluded that he had not shown the same level of hardship as plaintiffs in cases where costs were denied and had not provided specific documentation of the hardship payment would cause.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Rowell’s motion to vacate the costs award and awarded the costs assessed by the Clerk. The court stayed collection for 30 days so the parties could try to establish a payment plan, and said it could impose one if they could not agree. The opinion’s conclusion also directs the Clerk to enter an order “setting aside” the $4,828.01 award, which conflicts with the ruling immediately before it; the text does not resolve that inconsistency.
The detailed version
- Rowell v. City Of New York · No. 1:16-cv-06598
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 1, 2022
Background
After a jury trial produced a verdict for the defendants, the defendants applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 for $4,994.89 in costs. Rowell objected, arguing that awarding costs would be inequitable because he was indigent. The Clerk of Court awarded the defendants $4,828.01. Rowell then moved to vacate, or cancel, the Clerk’s taxation of costs.
Analysis
The court explained that Rule 54(d) generally provides that costs other than attorney’s fees should be allowed to the prevailing party. The court has discretion to deny costs when an award would be inequitable, and may consider a plaintiff’s financial hardship and good faith. But the court stated that indigence and good faith alone generally do not overcome the usual rule favoring an award of costs. It also stated that a party claiming financial hardship must provide documentary support rather than only general statements.
The court found that Rowell had litigated in good faith, based in part on the judge’s experience presiding over the trial. Rowell’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that Rowell received $770 per month in Supplemental Security Income and was employed at $15 per hour, subject to a 20-hour-per-week limit that he rarely reached. The court nevertheless concluded that the record did not show the same degree of financial hardship as in cases where courts had denied costs. It also found that Rowell had not provided specific documentation showing the hardship that paying the defendants’ costs would cause.
Ruling and Effect
The court denied Rowell’s motion to vacate the Clerk’s judgment of costs and stated that it awarded the costs assessed by the Clerk. Separately, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5240, the court stayed execution on the bill of costs for 30 days. The stated purpose was to give the parties time to agree on a payment plan that recognized Rowell’s financial situation and the defendants’ right to be paid when he could pay. If the parties could not agree, the court said it would impose a plan by modifying the timing and use of available collection methods.
The conclusion contains an apparent internal inconsistency. It directs the Clerk to enter an order “setting aside the award of costs in the amount of $4,828.01,” even though the preceding ruling says the court denied the motion to vacate and awarded the costs assessed by the Clerk. The opinion does not explain whether “setting aside” was intended to refer to something other than canceling the costs award. It also states that collection of the bill of costs is stayed for 30 days from the date the Order appears on the electronic docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.