Gillian Emery v. Frank Gallo ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                              In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 08-1315
    IN RE:
    F RANK G ALLO,
    Debtor-Appellee.
    A PPEAL OF:
    G ILLIAN A. E MERY
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of Illinois.
    No. 2:07-cv-02182-MPM-DGB—Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge.
    O N M OTION TO F ILE B ILL OF C OSTS I NSTANTER
    S EPTEMBER 23, 2009 Œ
    R IPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). Appellee Frank Gallo
    asks this court to allow his bill of costs to be filed late. The
    court entered judgment in Mr. Gallo’s favor on July 20,
    2009, and awarded him costs. Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 39(d) says, “A party who wants costs taxed
    Œ
    This opinion was released initially in typescript form.
    2                                                  No. 08-1315
    must—within 14 days after entry of judgment—file with
    the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and
    verified bill of costs.” Motion at 1. Mr. Gallo’s bill of costs
    was due on August 3, 2009, but he did not file his bill
    of costs by that date. Instead, he filed a motion to file the
    bill of costs instanter two days later, on August 5, 2009.
    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) allows the
    court to extend the time prescribed by the rules or
    permit an act to be done after that time expires if a party
    shows “good cause” for the delay. In Denofre v. Transporta-
    tion Insurance Rating Bureau, 
    560 F.2d 859
    , 860-61 (7th Cir.
    1977), this court denied a request to file a late bill of costs,
    holding that the Bureau had not shown good cause to
    persuade the court to exercise its discretion to allow the
    late filing. The Bureau attempted to show good cause by
    explaining that it had received the court’s opinion
    three business days before the bill was due and that the
    attorney of record was absent from the office during the
    relevant time. 
    Id. The court
    held that “the mere
    inattendance to the daily chores in one’s law office” does
    not constitute good cause. 
    Id. at 861.
    It further noted
    that there had been sufficient time for counsel to file a
    motion for an extension of time to file the bill of costs.
    
    Id. The opinion
    in Denofre was circulated to all judges
    in regular active service and no judge requested that the
    matter be reheard en banc. 
    Id. at 861
    n.4; see Cir. R. 40.
    In his motion to file his bill of costs instanter, Mr. Gallo
    explained that the bill of costs was late because he
    needed “to coordinate between various members of the
    appeals team to accumulate the information necessary
    No. 08-1315                                             3
    for the calculation of costs in this matter.” When this
    court requested more information, he explained that
    determining the amount of money spent on copies took
    longer than expected because the firms composing the
    appellate team are located in different towns.
    Mr. Gallo’s attempt to show good cause falls short of
    this court’s expectations as articulated in Denofre.
    Mr. Gallo does not adequately explain why communica-
    tion between team members in different locations
    delayed the filing of the bill of costs beyond the 14-day
    deadline. Moreover, even if communication was diffi-
    cult, Mr. Gallo could have filed a motion to extend time
    to file the bill of costs in which he explained the exten-
    uating circumstances. Considerations of stare decisis
    and the even-handed treatment of litigants requires that
    this court follow circuit precedent. Accordingly,
    Mr. Gallo’s request to file his bill of costs instanter
    is denied.
    D ENIED
    10-5-09
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1315

Judges: Ripple

Filed Date: 10/5/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/24/2015