Opinion
No. 4D2023-0001
11-01-2023
FLOPRO, LLC, Appellant, v. EOX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee.
Maury L. Udell of Beighley, Myrick, Udell & Lynne, PA, Miami, for appellant. Robert F. Elgidely of Fox Rothschild LLP, Miami, for appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-17-06535.
Maury L. Udell of Beighley, Myrick, Udell & Lynne, PA, Miami, for appellant.
Robert F. Elgidely of Fox Rothschild LLP, Miami, for appellee.
Forst, J.
Appellant FLOPRO, LLC challenges the trial court’s attorney’s fees and costs judgment entered in favor of Appellee EOX Technology Solutions, Inc. ("EOX"). We reverse and remand the cost award because it includes some costs not recoverable under the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs and applicable caselaw. We affirm without discussion on all other costs determinations and issues raised in the instant appeal.
Background
Following a jury verdict in EOX’s favor, EOX moved for attorney’s fees and costs. EOX’s motion sought $21,098.51 in total costs, and—per a table located within the motion—EOX sought $194.27 for Westlaw/research, $82.77 for postage, $248.76 for meals, $258.97 for mileage, and $270.70 for parking.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded $28,598.51 for costs to EOX. The trial court specified that $7,500.00 was for EOX’s expert fee, but the trial court did not break down the remaining $21,098.51 in its fees and costs judgment. This timely appeal follows.
Analysis and Conclusion
While the trial court did not itemize the remaining $21,098.51 figure, the record allows us to ascertain the breakdown. See Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (reversal was not required for cost order’s failure to itemize certain costs awarded where appellate court "encountered no difficulty in determining from the record which items and amounts were allowed"). Based on our re- view, we determine that several of these costs are not recoverable and should be removed from the total cost award.
[1–3] Computer-assisted legal research is not recoverable as a taxable cost. Wood v. Panton & Co. Realty, Inc., 950 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Nor is postage, which is an office expense. Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Parking, mileage, and meals should also be deducted from the cost award. Landmark Winter Park, LLC v. Colman, 24 So. 3d 787, 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
[4] Because the record reflects that the trial court improperly awarded nontaxable costs to EOX in the amounts of $194.27 for computer-assisted legal research, $82.77 for postage, $248.76 for meals, $258.97 for mileage, and $270.70 for parking, we reverse these costs and remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment removing these costs. We affirm on all other costs and issues.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Warner and May, JJ., concur.