Rowell v. City Of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-06598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Rowell v. City of New York: Judge Nathan denied Rowell’s motion, upheld $4,828.01 in costs, and stayed collection for 30 days.
Hozie Rowell and the defendants, including the City of New York, were affected: the defendants retained the $4,828.01 costs award, while collection was stayed for 30 days to allow discussion of a payment plan.
What happened
In Rowell v. City of New York, after a jury returned a verdict for the defendants, the Clerk awarded the defendants $4,828.01 in costs. Hozie Rowell asked the court to cancel that award, arguing that paying it would be unfair because of his financial situation.
The court recognized that Rowell acted in good faith and received $770 per month in Supplemental Security Income while earning $15 per hour with limited work. But it found that he had not shown the specific hardship that paying the costs would cause. The court therefore upheld the costs.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Rowell’s motion to cancel the costs and directed the Clerk to uphold the $4,828.01 bill. Judge Nathan stayed collection for 30 days so the parties could try to agree on a payment plan; if they could not, the court said it would set one.
The detailed version
- Rowell v. City Of New York · No. 1:16-cv-06598
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
After a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The defendants then sought $4,994.89 in costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Rowell objected, arguing that awarding costs would be inequitable because he was indigent. The Clerk of Court awarded the defendants $4,828.01, and Rowell moved to vacate, or cancel, that costs award.
Legal standard
Rule 54 generally provides that costs other than attorney’s fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. The court explained that it has equitable discretion—the authority to consider fairness—in deciding whether to award or deny costs. Relevant considerations can include a plaintiff’s financial hardship and good faith, but those factors alone usually do not overcome the ordinary rule favoring costs. The court also noted that a party seeking relief based on financial hardship must provide documentary support rather than only general statements.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Rowell had litigated the case in good faith. His counsel submitted a declaration stating that Rowell received $770 per month in Supplemental Security Income and earned $15 per hour, with his work capped at more than 20 hours per week and rarely reaching that amount. The court nevertheless concluded that, based on the papers, Rowell was not facing the same level of hardship as plaintiffs in cases where courts denied costs. The court also found that Rowell had not provided specific documentation showing the financial hardship he would face if required to pay the defendants’ costs.
Disposition
The court denied Rowell’s motion to vacate the Clerk’s judgment of costs and directed the Clerk to uphold the bill of costs entered in the defendants’ favor for $4,828.01. The court stayed execution—the collection process—for 30 days from the date the order appeared on the electronic docket. During that period, the parties could try to agree on a payment plan that recognized Rowell’s financial situation while preserving the defendants’ right to be paid. The court stated that, if the parties could not agree, it would impose a plan by modifying the timing and use of available collection methods. The order resolved docket number 149.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.