COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, D.J. Banovitz, Esq., and pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-101 and C.R.S. § 13-16-104 submits the following statement for an award of interest and costs assessable against Defendants as follows:
Plaintiff’s cause of action arose on April 14, 2005.
Plaintiff filed his suit on April 9, 2005.
Plaintiff received a verdict on November 19, 2008 in the amount of $1,059,239.00.
Simple interest is awarded pursuant to statute at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the cause of action arose. After the date the Plaintiff filed his complaint, he is entitled to compound annual interest. C.R.S. § 13-21-101(1).
Simple interest at 9% from April 14, 2005 through April 13, 2006 is $95,331.51.
Simple Interest at 9% from April 14, 2006 through April 9, 2007 is $94,025.59 Verdict plus simple interest is $1,248,596.10.
Compound interest from April 10, 2007 through April 9, 2008 is 9% of $1,248,596.10 = $112,373.64; total $1,360,969.70.
Compound interest from April 10, 2008 through November 19, 2008 is 9% of $1,360,969.70 ($122,487.27 or 335.58/day for 223 days) = $74,834.69.
Total prejudgment verdict and interest = $1,435,804.30.
Post judgment interest added till verdict paid $335.58/day.
ITEMS INCLUDABLE AS COSTS
A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover costs against a defendant. C.R.S. §13-16-104 (2006). The award of costs to a prevailing party pursuant to §13-16-104 is mandatory. Parker v. USAA, — P.3d —-, 2007 WL 1286614 (Colo. App.); National Canada Corp. v. Dikeou, 868 P.2d 1131, 1339 (Colo. App. 1993). C.R.S. §13-16-122 lists eight separate categories of costs specifically allowed, plus two categories of additional costs allowed under certain conditions. The list of allowable costs is not exhaustive but merely illustrative of the costs the Court should consider. Cherry Creek School Dist. No. 5 v. Voelker by Voelker, 859 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1993). In Voelker, the Colorado Supreme Court indicated that the usage of the word “include” in the statute referring to items which are includable as costs is ordinarily used as a word of extension or enlargement. In Harvey v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 983 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1998), the Court held that the statutory listing of costs is merely illustrative and does not deprive the trial court of its discretion to award all reasonable costs. Additionally, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy E. Rice authored an article which is both instructive and helps to clarify what other costs are recoverable under Colorado law. Nancy E. Rice and Ellen Ostheimer Creager, Bill of Costs, 25 Colo. Lawyer 71 (Nov. 1996).
Generally, a trial court has the authority to award any costs not specifically prohibited by statute. Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc., 37 P.3d 492, 500 (Colo App. 2001). Pursuant to Colorado case law, a party seeking costs “need only provide the court with sufficient information and supporting documentation to allow a judge to make a reasoned decision for each cost item presented.” City of Aurora v. Colorado State Engineer, 105 P.3d 595, 627 (Colo. 2005).
MANDATORY COSTS PURSUANT TO C.R.S. § 13-16-104 AND ITEMS INCLUDABLE AS COSTS: C.R.S. § 13-16-122
Docket Fees; Any fee required by statute to be paid to the clerk of court.
Lexis Nexis: $272.70
Expert Witness Fees and Expenses
Experts Testifying at Trial
Lee Moorer: $2150.00
Ralph Bidwell: $1225.00
Peter Pruett: $875.00
C.R.S. 13-16-122(e) approved pursuant to C.R.S. 13-33-102(4)
Copies and Postage
In-House Photocopies: $200.40
Colorado Aerial Photo Service: $103.10
Denver-Boulder Couriers: $10.50
Deposition Transcript Costs
Award of deposition cost is within the Court’s discretion, Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098 (Colo.App.2002)
Church v. American Standard Insurance Co., 764 P.2d 405 (Colo.App.1988).
Court Ordered Mediation
In Stevenett v. Wal-Mart Stores, 977 P.2d 508 (UT.App.1999), the court held that mediation fees and expenses were recoverable costs even thought they were not specifically listed in the cost statute. Public policy favors recovery of costs for mediation. In Stevenett the court stated: “We agree with these courts that it is good public policy to encourage exploration of alternative dispute resolution methods by allowing the prevailing party to recover costs so incurred.” 977 P.2d 508 at page 516.
Other cases allowing recovery of mediation costs: Martinueau v. City of Concord, New Hampshire, No. 93-268-M, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15801, at 11-12, 1994 WL 587832 at 4 (D.N.H. Oct. 24, 1994); Gibson v. Bobroff, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 239 (Cal.App.1996); Ledbetter v. Todd, 418 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla.App.1990).
Investigation: Civil and Criminal Background Check; Witness Interview/Recorded Statement
Andrew Atkins: $17.36
Service of Process