Allen v. Natl RR Passenger , 285 F. App'x 937 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-8-2008
Allen v. Natl RR Passenger
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2723
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Allen v. Natl RR Passenger" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 881.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/881
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 07-2723
____________
DEBRA ALLEN; BEVERLY GREEN;
RONALD JONES; JOILYNN SCOTT;
BILLY SHAW; YVONNE UPSHUR,
Appellants
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (Amtrak)
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cv-03497)
District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 18, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 8, 2008)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs, Debra Allen, Beverly Green, Ronald Jones, Joilynn Scott, Billy
Shaw, and Yvonne Upshur, appeal the District Court’s order denying their “Motion for
Review and Reversal of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs” where the Clerk taxed costs against
Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). For
the following reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
I.
We write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and
legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our
analysis.
On September 6, 2005, the District Court granted summary judgment for the
defendant, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as “Amtrak,” in a Title
VII race-discrimination case brought by the plaintiffs. On October 7, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. Seven days later, Amtrak filed a bill of costs initially seeking
$765.09 in “Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in
the case” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and $12,002.52 in “Fees and disbursements for
printing” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3). On January 31, 2007, we affirmed the order of
the District Court granting summary judgment for Amtrak. On March 23, 2007, the Clerk
entered his taxation of costs. The Clerk taxed the plaintiffs the $765.09 Amtrak had
requested in fees for exemplification and copies necessarily obtained for use in the case
and $6,451.52 for costs expended by Amtrak on outside duplicating and printing, yielding
a total amount of $7,216.61. The Clerk did not grant Amtrak’s request that the plaintiffs
be taxed $5,551.00 for on-site duplicating and printing. The plaintiffs then filed a motion
2
styled “Motion for Review and Reversal of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs,” arguing that
Amtrak purportedly only sought $765.09 in “copy costs” and the Clerk erred in awarding
$7,216.61. On May 7, 2007, the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and affirmed the
Clerk’s taxation of costs. This timely appeal followed.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “In reviewing
the District Court’s decision to impose costs in this case, we exercise plenary review as to
legal questions pertaining to Rule 54(d)(1). In reviewing the District Court’s application
of those legal precepts, we reverse only if that application exceeded the bounds of
discretion.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000).
III.
A.
The plaintiffs first argue that “the copy costs taxed by the Clerk . . . exceed the
copying costs claimed by the defendant by more than $6000.00.” However, this argument
is directly contradicted by the record on appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3), “A
judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs . . . [f]ees and
disbursements for printing and witnesses.” In its bill of costs, Amtrak specifically
requests both offsite and on-site “copy costs” under the heading “fees and disbursements
for printing.” Therefore, Amtrak sought the $6,451.52 that was awarded in outside
copying costs in addition to the $765.09 for exemplification and copies of papers
3
necessarily obtained for use in the case, for a total of $7,216.61 in copying costs. The
plaintiffs make no argument that these amounts were calculated in error or that Amtrak
was not otherwise entitled to recover these costs. Thus, the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in affirming the Clerk’s taxation of copying costs.
B.
The plaintiffs also argue that the timing of Amtrak’s filing of its Bill of Costs
renders the District Court’s decision invalid. The plaintiffs contend that the Procedural
Handbook of the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District (“Handbook”)
provides that a party cannot file a bill of costs with the Clerk until all litigation is
completed and a “prevailing party” has been determined. Handbook at 41, 43.
Specifically, the plaintiffs rely on the language “[i]t has been held that bills of costs must
be filed within a ‘reasonable’ time after the conclusion of litigation.” Id. at 41. The
plaintiffs interpret this language to require that the filing of the Bill of Costs before
resolution of the appeal mandates that “the entire Bill of Costs [be] rejected by the Clerk
and the District Court.”
The plaintiffs did not raise this argument in their motion before the District Court
and there is no other indication in the record that this argument was made before that
Court. Therefore, the plaintiffs have waived their right to pursue this argument on appeal.
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir.
4
2007) (“absent exceptional circumstances, issues not raised before the district court are
waived on appeal.”)
Even if this argument had not been waived, the bill of costs was timely filed. The
plaintiffs have not directed us to any rule or case supporting their contention that a bill of
costs filed after summary judgment but prior to the resolution of the appeal must be
rejected. Furthermore, the Clerk did not actually enter his Taxation of Costs until after
we affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment. Contrary to the plaintiff’s
assertions, we are aware of no rule that a bill of costs cannot be filed prior to resolution of
the appeals process, so long as the Clerk does not tax costs before the ultimate prevailing
party has been determined. See Paoli, 221 F.3d at 455 (upholding taxation of costs
against plaintiff where bill of costs was filed after defendants prevailed in the District
Court, but costs were not actually taxed until after resolution of the appeal).
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
5