UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FAISAL G. KHALAF, Ph.D., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

a Delaware corporation, 

BENNIE FOWLER and 

JAY ZHOU, jointly and severally, 

Defendants.

Case No: 2015-cv-12604 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711) 

Raymond J. Sterling (P34456) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway 

Suite 250 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

(248) 644-1500 

claughbaum@sterlingattorneys.com 

rsterling@sterlingattorneys.com 

KIENBAUM HARDY VIVIANO 

 PELTON & FORREST, P.L.C. 

Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

William B. Forrest III (P60311) 

Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 400 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@khvpf.com 

wforrest@khvpf.com 

tdavis@khvpf.com

 

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment to Reflect Costs 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7478 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 8
-1- 

Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Bennie Fowler, and Jay Zhou, by 

their undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 to amend the Judgment entered in this matter on February 17, 

2021 to include the $12,398.59 awarded to Defendants in the Clerk’s February 24, 

2021 Taxed Bill of Costs. Plaintiff did not file a motion to review the taxed bill and 

the time to do so has now elapsed. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the allowed 

costs should be “included in the judgment or decree.” On March 9, 2021, 

undersigned counsel requested concurrence in the relief requested, and on March 10, 

2021, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff would not oppose this motion. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court amend the Judgment to 

reflect the $12,398.59 award of costs in favor of Defendants. 

Respectfully submitted, 

KIENBAUM HARDY VIVIANO 

 PELTON & FORREST, P.L.C. 

By: /s/Thomas J. Davis 

 Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

 William B. Forrest III (P60311) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@khvpf.com 

 wforrest@khvpf.com 

Date: March 10, 2021 tdavis@khvpf.com 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7479 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FAISAL G. KHALAF, Ph.D., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

a Delaware corporation, 

BENNIE FOWLER and 

JAY ZHOU, jointly and severally, 

Defendants.

Case No: 2015-cv-12604 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711) 

Raymond J. Sterling (P34456) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway 

Suite 250 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

(248) 644-1500 

claughbaum@sterlingattorneys.com 

rsterling@sterlingattorneys.com 

KIENBAUM HARDY VIVIANO 

 PELTON & FORREST, P.L.C. 

Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

William B. Forrest III (P60311) 

Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 400 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@khvpf.com 

wforrest@khvpf.com 

tdavis@khvpf.com

 

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment to 

Reflect Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7480 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 8
-iIssue Presented 

The statute governing taxation of costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, states that “[a] bill 

of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or 

decree.” Here, the Clerk allowed costs of $12,398.59 in favor of Defendants. 

Plaintiff did not file a motion to review that award within the time permitted, and 

does not oppose this motion. Should this Court amend the judgment to include the 

awarded costs?

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7481 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 8
-iiControlling or Most Appropriate Authorities 

Menovcik v. BASF Corp., 2012 WL 3853011 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 5, 2012) 

28 U.S.C. § 1920 

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

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7482 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 8
Background 

On February 17, 2021, this Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants. 

ECF No. 161. On February 24, 2021, Defendants filed a bill of costs. ECF No. 162. 

Later that day, the Clerk taxed costs in Defendants’ favor in the amount of 

$12,398.59. ECF No. 163. Plaintiff did not file a motion to review the clerk’s 

taxation of costs within the seven days permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

54(d)(1). 

Argument 

Rule 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court 

order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to 

the prevailing party.” Allowable costs are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which 

specifically provides that a “bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon 

allowance, included in the judgment or decree.” 

Here, Defendants have filed a bill of costs; the Clerk taxed $12,398.59 of the 

requested costs, and no timely challenge to the Clerk’s action has been filed. That 

award has thus been allowed, and this Court should amend the judgment to include 

the $12,398.59 of costs awarded to Defendants, as called for in § 1920. The case of 

Menovcik v. BASF Corp., No. 09-12096, 2012 WL 3853011 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 5, 

2012) is directly on point in support of this request. There, the court held that the 

“right to a judgment that reflects costs is clearly established by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7483 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 8
-2- 

which provides that an allowed bill of costs should be ‘included in the judgment or 

decree.’” Id. at *2 (quoting Whitesell Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 1:05-CV-679, 

2010 WL 11537526, at *2 (W.D. Mich. June 11, 2010)). Because Defendants have 

received an award of costs, “an amended judgment reflecting the costs specifically 

allowed by the Court should be entered.” Menovcik, 2012 WL 3853011 at *2.

Conclusion 

This Court should amend the judgment to include the costs award of 

$12,398.59 in favor of Defendants. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

KIENBAUM HARDY VIVIANO 

 PELTON & FORREST, P.L.C. 

By: /s/Thomas J. Davis 

 Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

 William B. Forrest III (P60311) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@khvpf.com 

 wforrest@khvpf.com 

Date: March 10, 2021 tdavis@khvpf.com

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7484 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 8
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 10, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to all parties of record. 

/s/Thomas J. Davis 

Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Kienbaum Hardy Viviano 

 Pelton & Forrest, P.L.C. 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

tdavis@khvpf.com 

406243 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 166, PageID.7485 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 8