Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. State of California et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/28/13 ORDERING that the defendants' bill of costs is DENIED in it's entirety. (Manzer, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., 11 NO. CIV. S-13-0040 LKK/DAD Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 O R D E R 19 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and TOM TORLAKSON, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education for the State of California, 20 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 / 21 22 The court is in receipt of the Defendant State of California’s 23 filed bill of costs in the above-captioned matter, ECF No. 6, as 24 well as Plaintiff Law School Admission Council, Inc.’s filed 25 objections to the bill of costs, ECF No. 7. 26 //// 1 1 Defendants seek $523.23 for the costs of filing, serving, and 2 copying their notice of removal of this case from the Sacramento 3 County Superior Court, as well as attendant costs for postage and 4 mileage. See Defs’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 6. 5 According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, “[u]nless a 6 federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, 7 costs–-other 8 prevailing party.” than attorney’s fees–-should be allowed to the Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). 9 On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff Law School Admission Council, 10 Inc., voluntarily dismissed this action, pursuant to Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any answer or motion for 12 summary judgment on the part of the Defendants’ was filed or 13 served. Pl’s Not., ECF No. 5. 14 This type of voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), “leaves the parties as though no action 16 had been brought.” 17 (9th Cir. 1997). 18 action had been brought, neither party has prevailed in the action. 19 Defendants are, therefore, not entitled to the costs typically 20 awarded to a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 54. 22 23 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 Because, here, the parties are left as though no Defendants’ bill of costs, ECF No. 6, is DENIED in its entirety. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: February 28, 2013. 26 2