Lukas et al v. United Behavioral Health et al

Filing 67

ORDER RE: COSTS signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 5/25/2011 ORDERING that costs of $727.20 will be allowed. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

JENNIFER LUKAS AND JOYCE
WATTERS,

NO. CIV. 2:09-2423 WBS DAD

13
ORDER RE: COSTS
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND
IBM MEDICAL AND DENTAL
EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT
PLANS,

18
Defendants.
19

/

20
----oo0oo---21
On April 15, 2011, the court entered final judgment in

22
23

this case in favor of defendants.

(Docket No. 58.)

Defendants

24

submitted a cost bill totaling $727.20, (Docket No. 60), to which

25

plaintiffs have not filed any objections.1

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the final
judgment. (See Docket No. 61.) The court retains jurisdiction
to tax costs following the filing of a Notice of Appeal. See
1

1

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

2

and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing

3

parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28

4

U.S.C. § 1920.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules,

6

or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s

7

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); Local R.

8

292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437,

9

441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated in §

10
11

See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs);

1920).
The court exercises its discretion in determining

12

whether to allow certain costs.

See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

13

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court has

14

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

15

the meaning of § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc.,

16

914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same).

17

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

18

costs to the prevailing party.

19

Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998)

20

(noting that the presumption “may only be overcome by pointing to

21

some impropriety on the part of the prevailing party”); Amarel,

22

102 F.3d at 1523; see also Local R. 292(d) (“If no objection is

The losing party has

See Russian River Watershed Prot.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sullivan Props., Inc., CIV No. 04-00550,
2007 WL 4390665, at *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 17, 2007) (adopting special
master’s report); see also Riggs v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., Inc.,
Civil No. 08-03058, 2010 WL 2228569, at *3 (W.D. Ark. June 1,
2010) (“[C]ourts have held that, when an award of costs are not
the subject of the appeal, a district court may tax costs
pursuant to Rule 54 after a notice of appeal has been filed.”)
(citing cases); Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., No.
07-61295, 2009 WL 806587, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2009).
2

1

filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter costs.”).

2

Plaintiffs have not filed any objections.

After

3

reviewing the bill of costs, the court finds the following costs

4

to be reasonable:

5

Fees of the Clerk:

6

Fees for printed or electronically

7

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained

8

for use in the case:

9

Fees for exemplification and the costs

10

of making copies of any materials where

11

the copies are necessarily obtained for

12

use in the case:

$654.00

13

Total

$727.20

$39.00

$34.20

14

Accordingly, costs of $727.20 will be allowed.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: May 25, 2011

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3