United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
INDIANA COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION - MONROE COUNTY AND SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA, INC., Plaintiff,
JENNIFER MCCORMICK, Defendant. SEVEN OAKS CLASSICAL SCHOOL, INC., Intervenor Defendant.
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
before the Court are Defendants Jennifer McCormick's and
Seven Oaks Classical School, Inc.'s (“Seven
Oaks”) Bills of Costs, [Filing No. 96;
Filing No. 97], and Plaintiff Indiana Coalition for
Public Education's (“the Coalition”)
Motion for Review of Taxable Costs, [Filing No.
98], all filed after the Court dismissed this matter for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, [Filing No.
93]. Seven Oaks requests an award of $1, 853.34 and Ms.
McCormick requests $1, 490.74 in compensable costs. For the
reasons described below, the Court GRANTS
Ms. McCormick's request and TAKES UNDER
ADVISEMEMENT Seven Oaks' request.
costs that are recoverable by a prevailing party in a civil
lawsuit are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920:
or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies
of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained
for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services under section 1828 of this
of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance,
included in the judgment or decree.
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the Court has
discretion to tax the costs enumerated in § 1920 against
the losing party in an action, and a “strong
presumption” exists that the Court will do so.
Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945
(7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The losing party
“bears the burden of an affirmative showing that the
taxed costs are not appropriate.” Beamon v.
Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 864 (7th
Cir. 2005). “The process for awarding court costs is
intended to be summary.” ExtraEquipamentos E Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp., 541
F.3d 719, 727 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court should not
resolve arguments regarding the winning party's strategy
in litigating the case, id., but ...