# Cross

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370043

## Case

- **Full name:** The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Mary Rhude Cross, as guardian of A.C., a minor, J.C., a minor, and L.C., a minor, Any Unknown Children of Chaundre K. Cross
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 1, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370043

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-851-JES-KRH

MARY RHUDE CROSS, as
guardian of A.C., a minor,
J.C., a minor, and L.C., a
minor, ANY UNKNOWN CHILDREN
OF CHAUNDRE K. CROSS,

Defendant.

MARY RHUDE CROSS, as
guardian of A.C., a minor,
J.C., a minor, and L.C., a
minor,

Counter-Claimant

v.

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Counter-Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Company’s Bill of Costs (Doc. #171) filed on
March 18, 2026. Mary Rhude Cross filed an Objection (Doc. #174)
on April 1, 2026, and Northwestern Mutual filed a Response to
Objection (Doc. #184) on April 17, 2026. The requested costs will
be taxed as set forth below.
I.
Plaintiff Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
(Northwestern) filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) against Sarah Jo Cross,

individually and as personal representative of the Estate of
Chaundre K. Cross, M.D., and Mary Rhude Cross as guardian of the
minor children. Northwestern sought to rescind the contract of
insurance with Chaundre Cross or for a declaratory judgment that
Chaundre Cross’s death was a suicide. Sarah Jo Cross was dismissed
individually and as a personal representative without prejudice.
(Doc. #34.) Mary Rhude Cross (Cross) filed a Counterclaim (Doc.
#54) against Northwestern for breach of contract.
On November 5, 2025, the Court denied summary judgment.
(Doc. #77.) On February 3, 2026, at the Final Pretrial Conference,
the Court issued directives on how the case would proceed at trial
before a jury. (Doc. #126.) The case proceeded to trial and on

March 3, 2026, the jury returned verdicts finding that Northwestern
was entitled to rescind the life insurance policy but that it did
not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Cross died
by suicide. (Doc. #161.) Based on the verdicts, the Court
directed judgment as follows: (1) Northwestern was entitled to
rescind Dr. Cross’s policy, Policy No. 24021669, based on material
misrepresentations by him on his insurance application; (2) Mary
Rhude Cross did not show that such rescission was precluded by
ratification, waiver, or estoppel principles; (3) Northwestern’s
request for a declaratory judgment that Dr. Cross committed suicide
was denied; (4) Mary Rhude Cross has not established that
Northwestern Mutual breached its insurance contract; and (5)

Northwestern’s refusal to pay was justified because it was entitled
to rescind the policy. (Docs. #162, #168.)
The Bill of Costs (Doc. #171) seeks a total of $12,726.19 in
taxable costs. There is no objection to the $402 filing fee.
Mary Rhude Cross (Cross) objects to the costs of serving witness
subpoenas, the transcript costs, witness fees, and copying costs.
Cross suggests that Northwestern should be awarded an amount not
exceeding $4,704.44. In response, Northwestern notes that it
agreed to voluntarily reduce the demand before filing the request.
Northwestern agrees to further reduce the request in response to
an objection not previously raised for a total reduction of $467
as to service of process and $117.41 as to Dr. Mizyl Damayo.

II.
Cross does not dispute that Northwestern is entitled to costs
as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), only
the amount of costs. “[A]bsent explicit statutory or contractual
authorization for the taxation of the expenses of a litigant’s
witness as costs, federal courts are bound by the limitations set
out in 28 U.S.C. § 18211 and § 1920.” Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.
T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987). Under Section 1920,
A judge or clerk of any court of the United
States may tax as costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for
use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and
witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of
making copies of any materials where the
copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this
title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts,
compensation of interpreters, and salaries,
fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of
this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920. Northwestern seeks (1) Fees of the clerk; (2)
Fees for service of summons and subpoenas; (3) Fees for printed or
electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use
in the case; (4) Fees for witnesses; and (5) Fees for
exemplification and the costs of making copies of materials where
the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case. (Doc.
#171, p. 1.) The Court discusses each in turn.

1 This provides that a witness “in attendance at any court”
shall be paid an “attendance fee of $40 per day,” plus travel
expenses enumerated in the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1821.
A. Fees of the Clerk
Northwestern seeks to recover the $402.00 filing fee.
Taxation of the filing fee is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1),

and Cross does not object. Northwestern may recover the $402.00
filing fee.
B. Service Fees for Summons and Subpoenas
Northwestern seeks taxation of $5,305.60 for fees for service
of summons and subpoenas. Cross objects that the request includes
costs for subpoenas that were never served, resulted in no records
being obtained or used at trial, that were unnecessary because
they were already in hand prior to filing suit, or were a result
of attempted service on incorrect addresses. (Doc. #174, pp. 3-
4.) In response, Northwestern notes that some costs were removed
“from the outset” and other amounts were reduced based on the $65
an hour limit with rush services and other services reduced as

noted on the invoices. Northwestern agrees to a reduction of $467
to the extent that some “non-served” subpoenas should not be
taxable. (Doc. #184, pp. 5-8.)
A prevailing party may recover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1920(1), the costs of service of the summons and complaint, as
well as the costs of service of deposition and trial subpoenas, as
limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1921. U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d
600, 624 (11th Cir. 2000). Under § 1921(b), these service fees
may not exceed the amount set by the Attorney General by regulation
as fees for service by the U.S. Marshal. 28 C.F.R. § 0.114(a)(3).
The current fee for personal service of process is $65 per hour
for each item served, plus travel costs and other out-of-pocket

expenses. Id.
The fact that medical records were subpoenaed early in the
case does not reduce the costs as they were necessary for use at
trial. Therefore, The Court will allow a total of $4,838.60.
C. Transcripts
Plaintiff seeks $5,100.95 for the deposition costs of Averina
Cela, Sheila Ann Hauerwas, Adam Heiderman, Jason Kestly, Vera F.
Dolan, Dana Castro, and Alan Brown. Cross objects that Averina
Cela, Dr. Alan Brown, Vera Dolan, and Dr. Dana Castro all appeared
at trial and provided live testimony and so the transcript costs
should not be reimbursed. (Doc. #174, p. 5.)
Under § 1920(2), fees for transcripts “necessarily obtained

for use in the case” are taxable. The “necessarily obtained”
component is not an empty requirement. “Where the deposition
costs were merely incurred for convenience, to aid in thorough
preparation, or for purposes of investigation only, the costs are
not recoverable.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620
(11th Cir. 2000) (citing Goodwall Const. Co. v. Beers Const. Co.,
824 F. Supp. 1044, 1066 (N.D. Ga. 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 751 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)). “The question of whether the costs for a deposition
are taxable depends on the factual question of whether the
deposition was wholly or partially ‘necessarily obtained for use
in the case.’” Id., at 620-21 (citing Newman v. A.E. Staley Mfg.
Co., 648 F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (quoting § 1920(2))).

For a deposition of a party, the deposition must have been
“reasonably necessary.” Id. at 622.
Whether the non-parties also appeared at trial does not mean
that the depositions were not necessary for use in the case to
prepare for summary judgment or impeachment. The costs will be
permitted in the amount of $5,100.95.
D. Witnesses
Plaintiff seeks taxation of witness fees in the amount of
$1,353.15. Cross objects to the witness fees to the extent that
the fees are duplicative, witnesses did not appear, or the fees
are in excess of the $40 limit without an adequate explanation.
Cross disputes $1,038.84 of the total. (Doc. #174, p. 5.) In

response, Northwestern agrees that there is one duplication with
regard to Dr. Mizyl Damayo and it is agreed that the amount should
be reduced by $117.41. Northwestern otherwise explains the
mileage rate applied for witnesses to the Fort Myers Courthouse
was .58/mile rate. (Doc. #184, pp. 11-12.)
Witness fess may be taxed as costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3).
“In Crawford, the Supreme Court held that, ‘when a prevailing party
seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a
federal court is bound by the limit of § 1821(b), absent contract
or explicit statutory authority to the contrary.’” Morrison v.
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 463 (11th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437,

439 (1987)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1821, a witness attending court
or a deposition shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 per day,
plus travel to and from the place of attendance and during such
attendance. 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b). A witness who travels by common
carrier can be paid actual expenses of travel based on the means
of “transportation reasonably utilized and the distance
necessarily traveled” to the place of attendance. 28 U.S.C. §
1821(c)(1). A travel allowance for mileage, toll charges, “normal
travel expenses”, and a subsistence allowance shall also be paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(2)-(4), (d). Effective January 1, 2026, the
rate per mile is $0.725 for use of a privately owned automobile.2
After eliminating the duplicative cost for Dr. Mizyl Damayo

and noting that the mileage rate applied is less than the current
rate, the Court will grant witness costs in the amount of
$1,235.74.
E. Copy Costs
Plaintiff seeks $564.49 for the cost of making copies which
were necessarily obtained for use in the case. Cross disputes
$480.86 of this amount because Northwestern provides no

2https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-
etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates.
explanation. (Doc. #174, pp. 5-6.) Northwestern responds that
the only copying costs sought are those related to the central
issues in this case. (Doc. #184, p. 12.)

Under 1920(4), fees for “exemplification and copies” are
permitted if necessary for use in the case. “Copies attributable
to discovery” are a category of copies recoverable under § 1920(4).
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000)
(citation omitted).
In evaluating whether copies were necessary,
the Court does not award costs for copies made
merely for counsel's convenience, such as
multiple copies of documents. [] Similarly,
general copying costs without further
description are not recoverable. [] The costs
associated with copying documents for the
purpose of providing them to the court,
however, are reimbursable. [] Likewise, a
prevailing party may recover costs of copies
produced to opposing counsel. [] Thus, a party
must demonstrate that copies were necessarily
obtained for a reimbursable use in the case.[]
Monelus v. Tocodrian, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1335 (S.D. Fla.
2009) (internal citations omitted).
As previously noted, the fact that the copies were obtained
early in the case does not make them any less necessary for use in
the case. The Court will allow a total of $564.49.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendants’ Objection (Doc. #174) is sustained in part.
Plaintiff's Bill of Costs (Doc. #171) is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff shall submit a revised Bill of Costs consistent with
this Order for a total of $12,141.78. The Clerk shall tax costs
based on the revised Bill of Costs.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this Ist day of
June 2026.

AA 9 Pe,
JQH E. STEELE
5 ISR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies:
Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370043. Public record. Not legal advice.