Free Objections - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:02-cv-00289-RPM

Document 211

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 02 CV 00289-RPM ROCKIE LEE ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN L. CHADBOURNE, II RUDY FANNIN, JOSH BENNER, MR. LAWRENCE, MR. DAZEY, MR. STECKLER, THE PIKES PEAK REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY, Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' BILL OF COSTS

Plaintiff, through his counsel of record, McConnell Siderius Fleischner Houghtaling & Craigmile, LLC, hereby submits this Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs. As grounds, Plaintiff states: 1. On September 21, 2006, Defendants served upon the Plaintiff an Offer of

Judgment dated September 20, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. (Attached as Exh. A). Five days later, the Court entered an Order Granting Summary Judgment of Dismissal in favor Defendants. Docket # 206. 2. On September 27, 2006, a day after the Court entered its Order Granting

Summary Judgment of Dismissal, Plaintiff served on the Defendants a Notice of Acceptance of Defendants' Offer of Judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. (Attached as Exh. B).

Case 1:02-cv-00289-RPM

Document 211

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 2 of 3

3.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, the Plaintiffs' acceptance of the Defendants' Offer of

Judgment requires the Court to vacate its judgment entered in favor of the Defendants and instead enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Perkins v. U.S. West Comm., 138 F.3d 336, 339 (3d Cir. 1998). Once it does so, the Plaintiff will be the prevailing party, not the Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to any award of costs. 4. Assuming arguendo, however, that the Court proceeds with the costs hearing set

for October 17, 2006, the Plaintiff reserves his right to object to the costs sought by the Defendants as not recoverable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 1923, and 1924, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Pursuant to D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 7.1(a), undersigned certifies that he conferred with counsel for the Defendants concerning the issues contained herein. Counsel for Defendants indicated that he does not disagree that the Offer of Judgment was not revocable and was validly accepted, but disagrees about how it should be enforced. Defendants believe that Defendants' costs should be deducted from the amount contained in Defendants' Offer of Judgment. Plaintiff disagrees that costs should be deducted for the reasons identified above. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to the foregoing authority, Plaintiff respectfully OBJECTS to Defendants' Bill of Costs. Dated this 10th day of October, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Troy R. Rackham_________ Troy R. Rackham

2

Case 1:02-cv-00289-RPM

Document 211

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 3 of 3

McConnell Siderius Fleischner Houghtaling & Craigmile, LLC 4700 South Syracuse, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (303) 480-0400 Fax: (303) 458-9520 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Rockie Lee Zimmerman CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 10, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to email addresses: David M. Tenner, Esq. Bond & Morris, P.C. 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 888 Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] Shane White, Esq. Senior Attorney Office of the City Attorney P.O. Box 1575 30 South Nevada Avenue Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 [email protected] /s/ Leah Stevens

3