Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hernandez-Martinez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

May 30, 2013

MARIA ELENA HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL, District Judge.

On March 8, 2013 this court entered judgment in favor of Chipotle after the conclusion of a trial where the jury found for Chipotle on all counts. Chipotle has now submitted a Bill of Costs representing that its total costs exceeded $35, 000 and requesting costs totaling $19, 053.56. Plaintiff Maria Elena Hernandez-Martinez contests most of the costs as unnecessary and requests that the court exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) to deny all costs. The court determines that Chipotle has incurred $11, 879.42 in allowable costs. Because Hernandez-Martinez is indigent, the court exercises its discretion to deny all costs, except a nominal cost of $1000.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
(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 title.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), "costs-other than attorney's fees- should be allowed to the prevailing party." In analyzing a bill of costs, there "is a presumption that the prevailing party will recover costs, and the losing party bears the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs are not appropriate." Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005). The court's inquiry asks "(1) whether the cost imposed on the losing party is recoverable and (2) if so, whether the amount assessed for that item was reasonable." Majeske v. City of Chi., 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). A court may "consider[] indigence when assigning costs to a losing party." Rivera v. City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Requested Costs

With respect to fees, the total $19, 053.56 request is made up of: pro hac vice fees totaling $200; fees for locating and effecting service on Joe Brown totaling $1, 141.65; transcripts totaling $13, 356.65; witness fees and travel expenses for depositions and trial totaling $191.16; copying and printing fees totaling $1, 253.10; the use of the ELMO system to enlarge exhibits at trial for $2, 000; interpreter's fees at both trial and deposition of the plaintiff of $911. The court finds $11, 879.42 reasonably necessary: pro hac vice fees totaling $100; fees for locating and effecting service on Brown totaling $372.50; transcripts totaling $8, 305.25; witness fees and travel expenses for trial and depositions totaling ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.