Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Bambi Gicana et al

Filing 115

Order re: Objection and Opposition to Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs 113 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Maloney's Objection. The Clerk shall tax Gicana's costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
13
Plaintiff-in14
Interpleader,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
BAMBI GICANA; and ARACELI
)
MALONEY,
)
)
Defendants-in- )
Interpleader. )
)
)
)
AND RELATED CROSS AND
)
COUNTER CLAIMS
)
)

CV 16-08317-RSWL-RAO
Order re: Objection and
Opposition to
Application to the Clerk
to Tax Costs [113]

Currently before the Court is Defendant-in-

24 Interpleader Araceli Maloney’s (“Maloney”) Objection
25 and Opposition to Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs
26 (“Objection”) [113].

Having reviewed all papers

27 submitted pertaining to this Objection, the Court NOW
28 FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Court OVERRULES
1

1 Maloney’s Objection.
2

I. DISCUSSION

3 A.

Legal Standard

4

There is a strong presumption in favor of awarding

5 costs to prevailing parties.

Miles v. California, 320

6 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

The

7 burden is on the losing party to show why the costs are
8 not recoverable.

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d

9 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
10 Although a court must specify reasons for not awarding
11 costs to the prevailing party, it need not give any
12 reason for following the presumption and awarding
13 costs.

Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932,

14 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
15 B.

Analysis

16

As an initial matter, the Court declines to defer

17 its decision on costs pending resolution of Maloney’s
18 appeal.

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,

19 No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 4745933, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
20 Sept. 19, 2014) (citing cases).

In her Objection,

21 Maloney contends Defendant-in-Interpleader Bambi Gicana
22 (“Gicana”) is improperly attempting to tax costs
23 incurred in litigation not before this Court.
24 argument is unpersuasive.

This

As Gicana points out in her

25 Reply [114], the items underlying the costs led to
26 evidence used in support of Gicana’s Motion for Summary
27 Judgment [45] and the Court’s related Order [76].

Cf.

28 Indep. Iron Works, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 322 F.2d
2

1 656, 678 (9th Cir. 1963) (“If the depositions were
2 merely useful for discovery[,] then they were not
3 taxable items.” (citation omitted)).

Thus, the Court

4 abides by the strong presumption in favor of awarding
5 Gicana’s costs.
6
7

II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES

8 Maloney’s Objection.

The Clerk shall tax Gicana’s

9 costs.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior U.S. District Judge

12 DATED: July 11, 2018
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3