K.M. v. School Board of Lee County, Florida

3 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Dist.

    Case No. 15-22077-Civ-COOKE/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    "Because Florida law identifies the School Board as the policymaker for the School District, a single decision by the Board may constitute School Board policy, even if not phrased as a formal policy statement." K.M. v. School Board of Lee County Fla., 150 Fed. Appx. at 957.

  2. Whittaker v. St. Lucie County School Board

    Case Number: 10-14172-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Rejecting a “bare assertion” of “a custom, pattern, or practice” as “insufficient to state a claim for municipal liability”

    Because Florida law identifies the School Board as the policymaker for the School District, a single decision by the Board may constitute School Board policy, even if not phrased as a formal policy statement." K.M. v. School Board of Lee County Fla., 150 Fed. Appx. at 957. Plaintiff's bare assertion that Defendant has a custom, pattern, or practice of attempting to coerce, discourage or prevent employees from disclosing information on discrimination against disabled students, Complaint ¶ 44, is a conclusory allegation.

  3. Johnson v. Communications Supply Corp.

    CASE NO.: 05-60510-CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2006)   Cited 5 times
    Declining to award costs for mini-transcripts and disk copies of transcripts because they were incurred for the convenience of counsel

    Had physical copies been made, the costs would be recoverable under "fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case." The undersigned considered Defendant's arguments regarding technological advancement, and nevertheless, finds that, consistent with the weight of authority, the cost of ASCII transcripts is not recoverable. See, e.g. Price v. United Technologies Corp., Case No. 99-8152 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21504 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that "[m]ost courts have reasoned that mini transcripts and disk copies are only for the convenience of counsel"); Buffone v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., 2006 WL 3196931 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2006) (denying recovery of the cost of ASCII transcripts finding that they are for attorney's convenience and are not necessary to litigation); K.M. v. School Bd. of Lee County, Florida, 2006 WL 2506960 (M.D. Fla., August 9, 2006) (finding that the cost of ASCII transcripts is not a taxable cost). Plaintiff argued that the teleconference fee for out-of-state depositions was not recoverable. Defendant responded that the telephone conference call fee was necessary, because the witness was identified as a potential trial witness by Plaintiff in his initial disclosures, and ultimately cost-saving as it avoided a trip.