Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beaulieu v. Stockwell

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 19, 2019

Allen Beaulieu, individually and d/b/a Allen Beaulieu Photography, Plaintiff,
v.
Clint Stockwell, an individual; Studio 1124, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Thomas Martin Crouse, an individual; Charles Willard “Chuck” Sanvik, an individual, and Does 3 through 7, Defendants.

          Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq., Parker Daniels Kibort LLC, counsel for Plaintiff.

          Michael L. Puklich, Esq., Neaton & Puklich, P.L.L.P., counsel for Defendants Clint Stockwell and Studio 1124, LLC.

          Edward F. Fox, Esq., Lauren Shoeberl, Esq., & Lewis A. Remele, Jr., Esq., Bassford Remele, counsel for Defendant Charles Willard Sanvik.

          Eva Wood, Esq., Outfront MN, counsel for Defendant Thomas Martin Crouse.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Allen Beaulieu's (“Beaulieu”) Objection to Bill of Costs. (Doc. No. 238.)

         BACKGROUND

         This Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed all of Beaulieu's claims against them with prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 220, 221, 232.) Thereafter, Defendant Charles Willard “Chuck” Sanvik (“Sanvik”) filed a Bill of Costs (“Bill of Costs”) with the clerk, seeking payment of deposition fees used to defend against Plaintiff's claims totaling $7, 723.95. (Doc. No. 235.) The clerk subsequently filed a cost judgment of $7573.15 in favor of Sanvik.[1] (Doc. No. 240.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), the Court has “substantial discretion” in awarding costs to a prevailing party. Zotos v. Lindbergh, 121 F.3d 356, 363 (8th Cir. 1997). Unless a federal statute, rules, or court other provides otherwise, “costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Beaulieu has the burden to show that the cost judgement “is inequitable under the circumstances.” Concord Board Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

         II. Broad Objections

         Beaulieu objects to all items contained in the Bill of Costs because he is indigent, and because Sanvik has more resources. Beaulieu argues that his only regular and consistent income is social security retirement benefits of $780.00 per month. While Beaulieu has attached documentation of his social security benefits (Doc. No. 238, Ex. 1), the record also reflects that he recently published a book (Doc. No. 124, Ex. G) and that he attributes substantial monetary value to his collection of Prince photographs (Doc. No. 47 ¶¶ 23-24.) The Court finds that Beaulieu has failed to provide sufficient documentation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.