Thomas et al v. Byrne, No. 2:2008cv00307 - Document 25 (M.D. Ala. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that defendant Bradley Byrne's 13 objection to the bill of costs is overruled as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 3/19/09. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION GLADYS RENODA THOMAS and GEORGE TERRELL, for themselves and all others similarly situated, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. BRADLEY BYRNE, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Department of Postsecondary Education of the State Department of Education, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv307-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER It is objection ORDERED to the that bill defendant of costs Bradley (doc. no. Byrne s 13) is overruled. Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in relevant part, that, Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs other than attorneys fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. Rule 54(d)(1) establishes a presumption that costs are to be awarded to a prevailing party, but vests the district court with discretion to decide otherwise. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000)(en banc). Here, the court taxed costs to plaintiffs Gladys Renoda Thomas and George Terrell in the sum of $ 350.00, which consisted entirely of fees for the clerk. Byrne s only objection to the taxation was that the plaintiffs were not the prevailing party. The court, however, has today issued an opinion that decided the plaintiffs were, indeed, the prevailing parties in this litigation and awarded them reasonable attorneys fees as a result. This decision applies equally to the question of costs. Byrne s objection to the taxation of costs is without merit. DONE, this the 19th day of March, 2009. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.