Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01315/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS B. REINHART, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:02cv1315-MHT

CHARLES E. SHANER and ) (WO)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

In this lawsuit, plaintiff Thomas B. Reinhart, Jr.,

charged defendants City of Montgomery and Charles E.

Shaner with discrimination and retaliation in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42

U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117, 12203, and with asserted state-law

claims of negligence, assault, and malicious interference

with a contractual relationship.

This cause is now before the court on Shaner’s bill

of costs in the amount of $ 919.88 and on Reinhart’s

motions to strike the costs bill. 

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 9
1. In his bill of costs, Shaner seeks to recover a

total of $ 919.88 for the following costs: (1) $ 267.90

in fees of the court reporter for depositions and

transcripts: and (2) $ 651.98 in fees for exemplification

and copies of paper.

2

I. BACKGROUND

 February 9, 2004: This court entered an order

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants

except for Reinhart’s retaliation claim against the city

under the ADA, with the result that judgment was entered

in favor of Shaner and against Reinhart on all claims,

Reinhart v. Shaner, 2004 WL 419911 (M.D. Ala. 2004)

(Thompson, J.).

February 20: A jury found in favor of the city on

the remaining ADA retaliation claim.

February 24: Judgment was entered in favor of the

city and against Reinhart

February 25: Shaner filed a bill of costs in the

amount of $ 919.88.1

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 9
2. Because, according to the City of Montgomery, any

costs it sought to recover would be redundant of those

sought by Shaner, it has not filed a costs bill. See

Doc. No. 82.

3

February 26: The clerk of the court taxed costs in

favor of Shaner and against Reinhart in the amount of

$ 919.88. 

March 6 and 22: Reinhart served and filed motions to

strike Shaner’s costs bill.2

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides

that “costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed

as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

otherwise directs.” 

Reinhart moves to strike Shaner’s costs bill, and

Shaner responds that Reinhart’s motions to strike are

untimely. Therefore, as a threshold matter, the court

must determine whether Reinhart’s motions to strike are

properly before this court. Rule 54(d)(1) provides that,

“On motion served within 5 days [after costs are taxed by

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 9
3. As stated, Rule 54(d)(1) provides that, “On

motion served within 5 days [after costs are taxed by the

clerk], the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the

court.” The triggering term is “served,” not “filed.”

In finding that Reinhart “served” his motions on strike

on March 6 and 22, the court has relied on the service

dates he gives in the ‘certificates of service’ attached

to the motions.

4

the clerk], the action of the clerk may be reviewed by

the court.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) covers

the computation of this five-day window. Applying Rule

6(a)’s exclusion of the day the clerk taxed the costs

(February 26, 2004) and weekends, Reinhart’s motion was

due on the last day of the five-day period, March 4.

However, Reinhart did not serve his motion until March 6;

he then served a renewed motion on March 22.3

 Reinhart

offers no explanation for his failure to meet the March

4 deadline.

The court, therefore, agrees that Reinhart’s motions

are untimely. Nevertheless, the court can independently

conceive of two grounds for extending the five-day

period, but finds that they are not applicable here. 

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 9
5

First, some courts have granted parties serving

motions to strike costs three additional days beyond the

five days provided in Rule 54(d)(1) based on Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 6(e). See, e.g., Marino v. Kirkland,

146 F.R.D. 49, 50-51 (N.D. N.Y. 1993) (finding that a

motion objecting to costs was timely because three days

had to be added for mailing pursuant to Rule 6(e)). When

Reinhart served his motions, Rule 6(e) provided that,

“Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some

act or to take some proceedings within a prescribed

period after the service of a notice or other paper upon

the party and the notice or paper is served upon the

party under Rule 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days shall be

added to the prescribed period.” 

Other courts, however, have rebuffed this approach

and held that the five-day clock begins to run from the

day the clerk taxes the costs, such that Rule 6(e)’s

service or notice of that order is irrelevant for

calculating the response time. See e.g., Lorenz v.

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 5 of 9
6

Valley Forge Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 1259, 1261 (7th Cir. 1994)

(because five-day period begins with entry of order

taxing costs, rather than with service of order, Rule

6(e) inapplicable); Mattson v. Brown University, 925 F.2d

529, 532 (1st Cir. 1991) (Rule 6(e) is inapplicable

because the time to object runs from the entry of clerk’s

judgment, not from service); see also 54-10 Moore's

Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 54.100 (“Because

the time for filing the motion is measured from the date

of the clerk's action [of taxing costs], rather than from

service of the notice of the action, Rule 6(e) does not

apply, and three days are not added to the time

limitation even if notice of the clerk's action is

received by mail.”). 

Because this court agrees with the majority view that

Rule 6(e) is inapplicable to motions to strike costs and

because Reinhart has failed to offer any argument for

distinguishing the apparent majority rule in his

particular case, the court holds that Rule 6(e) did not

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 6 of 9
4. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981.

7

extend that five-day period for Reinhart to serve his

motions.

Second, the five-day period has been extended under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for excusable

neglect. See e.g., Baum v. United States, 432 F.2d 85,

86 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Kolesar, 313 F.2d

835, 837 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1963)); Breitenback v. Neiman

Marcus Group, 181 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Ga. 1998) aff’d 176

F.3d 495 (11th Cir. 1999) (table); American Key Corp. v.

Cumberland Associates, 102 F.R.D. 496 (N.D. Ga. 1984).4

Rule 6(b) provides that:

“When by these rules or by a notice

given thereunder or by order of court an

act is required or allowed to be done at

or within a specified time, the court

for cause shown may at any time in its

discretion (1) with or without motion or

notice order the period enlarged if

request therefor is made before the

expiration of the period originally

prescribed or as extended by a previous

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 7 of 9
8

order, or (2) upon motion made after the

expiration of the specified period

permit the act to be done where the

failure to act was the result of

excusable neglect."

This provision does not assist Reinhart, however, because

he did not make a request or motion for enlargement.

More importantly, the court's discretion to extend the

period to serve an objection to, or a motion to strike,

costs must be based on good-cause shown (including

excusable neglect when the extension motion is made after

the expiration of the specified period), but Reinhart has

not shown any cause, much less good cause for his delay.

Rule 6(b) is consequently not applicable in this

situation. 

It is therefore ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff Thomas B. Reinhart, Jr.’s motions to

strike the bill of costs (Doc. Nos. 79 & 83) are

denied as untimely.

(2) Defendant Charles E. Shaner’s bill of costs,

(Doc. No. 78) is granted.

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 8 of 9
(3) Costs in the amount of $ 919.88 are taxed against

plaintiff Reinhart, for which execution may

issue.

DONE, this the 23rd day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01315-MHT-VPM Document 90 Filed 03/23/06 Page 9 of 9