United States District Court, D. Delaware
Nina Shahin, Dover, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Michael W. Arrington, Esquire, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
Plaintiff Nina Shahin ("Plaintiff) filed this consolidated action pursuant to the Expedited Funds Availability Act ("EFAA"), 12 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On April 22, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to costs prior to November 7, 2011, the date Defendant made an offer of judgment. (D.I. 79)
On March 7, 2014, the Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff after determining that Defendant violated 12 C.F.R. § 229.13(e)(2) and partial summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's remaining claims. Defendant subsequently advised the Court that it had twice made an offer of judgment to Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, in the amount of $1, 000.00, the maximum amount for which it could be liable to Plaintiff. See 12 C.F.R. 229.21. Thereafter, the Court dismissed the complaint as moot and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1, 000.00. The Court retained jurisdiction for a determination as to costs of suit and directed the parties to confer and advise the Court whether they had resolved the amount of costs. ( See D.I. 55)
Defendant advised the Court that Plaintiff declined to meet and confer on the issue of costs. ( See D.I. 71) It provided the Court with a copy of an offer of judgment made to Plaintiff on November 7, 2011. (See id) The Court re-entered judgment in accordance with its March 7th opinion and order, and Plaintiff appealed. ( See D.I. 74, 75) The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and remanded the matter for a determination as to Plaintiff's costs, if any, prior to November 7, 2011. See Shahin v. Delaware Fed Credit Union, 602 F.Appx. 50, 54 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2015). Having considered the documentary evidence and briefs of the parties, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4)
2. All costs of service were advanced by the United States. (D.I. 5)
3. On November 7, 2011, Defendant made an offer of judgment to Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, in the amount of $1, 000, the maximum amount for which it could be liable to Plaintiff under 12 C.F.R. 229.21. (D.I. 71) Plaintiff rejected the offer.
4. Subpoenas issued upon request of Plaintiff and were served in January 2012. (D.I. 33, 35) Plaintiff incurred $50.00 in costs for service of the subpoenas. (D.I. 81 Ex. L)
5. In February 2012, depositions took place as scheduled by Plaintiff. (D.I. 31, 32, 34, 35) Plaintiff incurred $378.00 in deposition transcript costs and $65.60 in witness fee costs in taking ...