Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00360/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00360-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD PREIS, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0360-WS-C

 )

LEXINGTON INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ “Motion to Strike Bill of Costs.” 

(Doc. 166). The motion addresses the bill of costs filed by defendants T & B, Ltd. and

Allen Ladd (“the defendants”), (Doc. 164), who were recently granted summary

judgment. (Doc. 161). The motion to strike raises four grounds, none colorable.

First, the plaintiffs complain that the defendants filed no motion to tax. True, but

the defendants properly filed a bill of costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Local Rule 54.1.

Second, the plaintiffs assert there is “no contractual or legal reason why” they

should be taxed with costs, because they “filed valid claims against the Defendants in

good faith.” However, “[g]ood faith without more ... is an insufficient basis for denying

costs to a prevailing party.” Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 149 Fed. Appx. 831, 832

(11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotes omitted).

Third, the plaintiffs note the defendants made no Rule 68 offer of judgment. Rule

68, however, operates independently of Rule 54(d). The latter rule governs the award of

costs to a prevailing party; the former rule allows, in some circumstances, an award of

costs to one who is not a prevailing party. 

Finally, the plaintiffs object that the Court’s order granting the defendants

summary judgment did not order that costs be taxed. Costs, however, “shall be allowed

Case 1:06-cv-00360-WS-C Document 168 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d)(1). The Court did not otherwise direct. “It was therefore unnecessary for the court

affirmatively to direct that the prevailing defendant be allowed costs.” Lucas v. Florida

Light & Power Co., 729 F.2d 1300, 1301 (11th Cir. 1984).

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to strike is denied. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00360-WS-C Document 168 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2