Mata Chorwadi, Inc., et al v. City of Boynton Beach, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13873
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MATA CHORWADI, INC.,
d.b.a. Homing Inn,
KIRIT SHAH,
DIPIKA SHAH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
GREGORY CAFARO,
In His Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13873
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-81069-WPD
____________________
Before J ORDAN , G RANT, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM:
Mata Chorwadi, Inc., and its majority owners, Kirit and
Dipika Shah—we’ll refer to them collectively as “Chorwadi”—ap-
peal the district court’s award of taxable costs to the City of
Boynton Beach. After careful review of the record and the parties’
briefs, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The underlying claims in this case involved a challenge un-
der the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the City’s enforce-
ment of its nuisance code. The district court granted the City’s
motion for summary judgment on November 17, 2020, and we’ve
since affirmed on the merits. See Mata Chorwadi, Inc. v. City of
Boynton Beach, 66 F.4th 1259 (11th Cir. 2023).
After the summary judgment in its favor, the City moved to
recover costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The
motion detailed a list of costs that included transcripts, copies, mail,
mediation, parking, and approximately $12,000 of expert fees. The
City argued these costs were taxable under 28 U.S.C. section 1920,
except for the non-taxable mail, mediation, and parking expenses,
which it nevertheless requested under Rule 54.
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

21-13873 Opinion of the Court 3
The district court referred the City’s motion to the magis-
trate judge, who directed supplemental briefing on specific objec-
tions to any costs the City sought. Chorwadi’s supplemental brief
objected to every item on the City’s bill of costs because the City
violated the local rules by not making “good faith efforts” to re-
solve the costs dispute. The City’s supplemental brief listed ways
it had attempted to comply with the local rules’ conferral require-
ments. The City reiterated its requests both for costs it claimed
were taxable under section 1920 (including expert costs) and costs
it acknowledged were not; it also attached exhibits with invoices to
support its claims.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the City’s mo-
tion in part. The judge read the local rules to require less stringent
conferral requirements for taxable costs under section 1920 than
for non-taxable costs, and he found the City had satisfied the re-
quirements as to taxable costs—or alternatively that Chorwadi had
waived objections to taxable costs by relying on a blanket objec-
tion. The magistrate judge categorized the City’s $12,000 expert
fee as a taxable cost, and recommended a total taxable cost award
of $17,000.
Chorwadi raised three objections to the recommendation:
(1) the City’s motion was untimely under the local rule for taxable
costs; (2) the magistrate judge erred in awarding the City’s expert
fees as a taxable cost; and (3) the magistrate judge clearly erred in
finding the City had complied with the conferral requirement un-
der the local rule for taxable costs.
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13873
The district court overruled Chorwadi’s objections and
adopted the recommendation. As to the first two objections, the
district court explained that it need not consider them because
Chorwadi did not specifically raise them with the magistrate judge.
As to the third objection, the district court agreed with the magis-
trate judge that the City met the conferral requirements for taxable
costs under the local rules. It thus ordered Chorwadi to pay the
full $17,000 in taxable costs. Chorwadi timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review cost awards for an abuse of discretion. Yellow
Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2017).
“An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court commits a
clear error of judgment, fails to follow the proper legal standard or
process for making a determination, or relies on clearly erroneous
findings of fact.” Id. We also review for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s enforcement of its local rules. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d
189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION
Chorwadi raises the same arguments here as it did in the ob-
jections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation: the City’s mo-
tion was untimely under the local rule for taxable costs; the district
court improperly awarded the City’s expert fees as taxable costs
when private expert fees are not taxable under section 1920; and
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

21-13873 Opinion of the Court 5
the district court erred in finding that the City complied with the
conferral requirements in the local rule for taxable costs.1
As to Chorwadi’s first two arguments on appeal, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider them be-
cause Chorwadi never raised them with the magistrate judge. Af-
ter the magistrate judge directed supplemental briefing on the spe-
cific legal or factual objections to the costs the City claimed, Chor-
wadi’s only specific objection was that the City failed to comply
with the conferral procedures in the local rules. The district court
thus didn’t need to consider the other objections Chorwadi didn’t
present to the magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d
1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that a district court need not
address arguments “not presented to the magistrate judge”).
Chorwadi responds that (1) the City moved only for non-tax-
able costs that were governed by one local rule, and (2) it thus
couldn’t have anticipated the magistrate judge would award the
City taxable costs that were governed by a different local rule. But
the City’s motion and supplemental brief requested some costs it
1 Chorwadi also argues the district court applied an incorrect standard by re-
viewing the magistrate judge’s fact findings for clear error rather than de novo.
But, although there’s some boilerplate language in the district court’s order
about the standard for reviewing non-dispositive discovery matters—which
this was not—the district court was clear that it conducted an “independent
review” of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and, after reviewing “the
record,” the district court agreed that it supported the magistrate judge’s find-
ings. There was no mention of “clear error” in this part of the district court’s
order.
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 21-13873
claimed were taxable under 28 U.S.C. section 1920 (including ex-
pert costs) and some costs that it acknowledged were not. So it was
no surprise to Chowardi that the City sought taxable costs and the
magistrate judge recommended them and applied the local rule for
taxable costs.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding
that the City complied with the conferral requirements for taxable
costs. The record was undisputed that the City called Chorwadi to
confer about the costs motion and to resolve any specific objec-
tions. Chorwadi told the City that it did not agree to any of the
costs because the City failed to comply with the local rules. As the
district court explained, no more was required to comply with the
conferral requirement under the local rule for taxable costs. See
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1267 n.22 (11th Cir. 2008) (“We give
great deference to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules
and review a district court’s application of local rules for an abuse
of discretion.” (quotations and alteration omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-13873 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2024 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --