Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CYNTHIA BUMPERS, Administrator ) 

Ad Litem for the Estate of Nelson Bumpers, ) 

et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-00155-KD-N 

 ) 

AUSTAL U.S.A., L.L.C, ) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s oral request for a Certificate of Judgment 

as to the costs retaxed against the Plaintiffs per Doc. 965, this Court’s Order (Doc. 967), 

Plaintiffs’ Response and request for manner of apportionment of costs among the Plaintiffs (Doc. 

969), and Defendant’s Response of no opposition (Doc. 970). 

 While Defendant incurred certain costs in defending against specific Plaintiffs, the order 

retaxing costs (Doc. 965) did not apportion costs among the Plaintiffs. Allstate Ins. Co., Inc. v. 

Jones, 763 F. Supp 1101, 1102 (M.D. Ala. 1991) (The language of Rule 54(d) “is generally 

considered to state an equitable principle ... [which] vests in the district court a sound discretion 

over the allowance, disallowance, or apportionment of costs in all civil actions.” (citations and 

internal quotations omitted)). Thus, Plaintiffs were ordered to file a proposed apportionment of 

costs among the Plaintiffs. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Silver Star Health and 

Rehab, 739 F. 3d 579, 585-586 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The default rule is that costs are to be imposed 

jointly and severally, and the burden is on the party seeking to avoid that to introduce evidence 

justifying apportionment and persuade the court to do that[]”). (Doc. 967). Defendant was also 

ordered to file any response to the proposed apportionment. (Id.) The parties have filed their 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 971 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Responses to the Court’s Order (Docs. 969, 970).

On November 6, 2015, the Court issued an order retaxing costs in favor of Austal and 

against Plaintiffs in the amount of amount of $32,751.30 (comprised of $28,520.35 for 

deposition transcripts, $1,212.45 for witness fees, $230.00 for trial subpoenas, $177.50 for 

certified copies and $2,611.00 for printing costs). (Doc. 965). Counsel for Plaintiffs propose the 

following apportionment of those retaxed costs among the Plaintiffs, with which Austal is in 

agreement (Doc. 969 (and Ex. A thereto); Doc. 970):

Earaton Adams (Tr#1 & 3) $1,477.17

Robert Adams $1,278.99

Myron Barnes (Tr#1 & 3) $1,477.18

Cynthia Bumpers

(Administrator Ad Litem) (Tr#4)

$1,499.05

Fredrick Carter, Sr. (Tr#1) $1,477.17

Alvin Cunningham $1,278.99

Sidney Hedgeman (Tr#1) $1,477.17

Tesha Hollis $1,469.89

Carlos Johnson (Tr#1 & 3) $1,477.18

Larry J. Laffiette (Tr #5) $1,469.88

Ron Law (Tr #5) $1,469.88

Jermel Matthews (Tr# 3) $1,452.17

Jerome Pettibone (Tr #5) $1,469.88

Rahman K. Pratt $1,278.99

Nathaniel Reed (Tr #4) $1,499.06

Jermaine Roberson (Tr #3) $1,452.16

Carolyn Slay $1,278.99

Charles L. Stills, III (Tr #3) $1,452.16

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 971 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Gloria Sullivan $1,278.99

Beverly Thomas (Tr #2) $1,506.17

Franklin Thomas $1,278.99

George Wells (Tr #3) $1,452.16

Frederick Williams (Tr #4) $1,499.04

TOTAL $32,751.30

Upon consideration and given Austal’s lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

apportionment request (Doc. 969 (and Ex. A thereto)) and APPORTIONS the costs in the 

manner proposed by Plaintiffs such that each plaintiff is responsible for payment of the amount 

apportioned to him or her, as detailed in the chart supra.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue an appropriate certificate of judgment.

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of January 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 971 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 3