Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 8, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-00008

StatusUnknown

This text of Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00008 MATHLON K. PULLIAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. No. 25). According to Local Rule 54.1(e), “[t]he Court’s review of the Clerk of Court’s action will be made on the existing record unless otherwise ordered.” LCvR 54.1(e). For the reasons stated in Defendant’s Response (Doc. No. 26), as well as the reasoning in the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1), which, “creates a presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party.” Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). If the Court were to deny an award of costs to the defendant, it would have to “justify its decision by articulating some good reason for doing so.” Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Oak Hall Cap and Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). In short, Plaintiff reasserts the same arguments considered by the Clerk and has failed to show error in the Clerk’s reasoning. (Doc. No. 25). Indeed, the instant motion notes “as argued more fully in Plaintiff’s Objection to Bill of Costs [Doc. 22],” signifying the instant motion relies on the same evidence and arguments considered – and rejected – by the Clerk. Id. Plaintiff has thus failed to identify a “good reason” for the Court to reject the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. Teague, 35 F.3d at 996. The Court has reviewed the pleadings related to the taxation of costs and finds no sufficient reason to set asked the Costs as ordered by the Clerk. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED, and the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. 24) is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: April 7, 2020

Frank D. Whitney □□ Chief United States District Judge ~“»*"

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00008 MATHLON K. PULLIAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. No. 25). According to Local Rule 54.1(e), “[t]he Court’s review of the Clerk of Court’s action will be made on the existing record unless otherwise ordered.” LCvR 54.1(e). For the reasons stated in Defendant’s Response (Doc. No. 26), as well as the reasoning in the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1), which, “creates a presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party.” Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). If the Court were to deny an award of costs to the defendant, it would have to “justify its decision by articulating some good reason for doing so.” Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Oak Hall Cap and Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). In short, Plaintiff reasserts the same arguments considered by the Clerk and has failed to show error in the Clerk’s reasoning. (Doc. No. 25). Indeed, the instant motion notes “as argued more fully in Plaintiff’s Objection to Bill of Costs [Doc. 22],” signifying the instant motion relies on the same evidence and arguments considered – and rejected – by the Clerk. Id. Plaintiff has thus failed to identify a “good reason” for the Court to reject the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. Teague, 35 F.3d at 996. The Court has reviewed the pleadings related to the taxation of costs and finds no sufficient reason to set asked the Costs as ordered by the Clerk. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED, and the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs (Doc. 24) is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: April 7, 2020

Frank D. Whitney □□ Chief United States District Judge ~“»*"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pulliam v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulliam-v-lowes-companies-inc-ncwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack