Nance v. Miser et al

Filing 46

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Postpone Bill of Costs (Doc. 44 ) is denied. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/31/2014.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Keith Preston Nance,

10
11
12

No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD)

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

Allen Miser, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion and entered judgment

16

against Plaintiff on September 22, 2014; Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal the following

17

week (Docs. 36-37, 38). Defendants filed their application for bill of costs on October 6,

18

2014 (Doc. 41). Plaintiff moves to postpose a decision on taxing costs because of the

19

appeal.

20

As explained in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-1846, 2014 WL

21

4745933, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014), pursuant to the Advisory Committee Notes for

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the

23

court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the

24

motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing

25

after the appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee notes on

26

1993 amendments. This Committee Note has consistently been applied to requests for

27

costs as well as claims for fees. See e.g., Friends of Tahoe Forest Access v. U.S. Dep’t of

28

Agric., No. 12–1876, 2014 WL 1575622, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014) (exercising its

1

discretion and finding no basis to defer a decision on the bill of costs pending plaintiffs’

2

appeal); Lasic v. Moreno, No. 05–161, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21,

3

2007 (“The reasoning of the Advisory Committee’s note is applicable to a ruling on a bill

4

of costs.”); accord Pixion Inc. v. PlaceWare Inc., No. 03–2909, 2005 WL 3955889, at *2

5

(N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005) (declining to grant a stay on the taxation of costs pending

6

appeal).

7

The Court, in its discretion, will deny Plaintiff’s request to defer taxation of costs.

8

Defendants, as prevailing parties, have an interest in prompt payment of its costs and the

9

fact that Plaintiff has taken an appeal of this Court’s decision does not lessen that interest.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Postpone Bill of

11
12

Costs (Doc. 44) is denied.
DATED this 31st day of October, 2014.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-