Mayo v. Recycle to Conserve

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 03/23/12 re 69 Bill of Costs ORDERING that the costs of $1,459.80 will be allowed. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

NO. CIV. 2:10-629 WBS EFB

EDISON MAYO,

13

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: COSTS

14

v.

15

RECYCLE TO CONSERVE, INC.,

16

Defendant.
___________________________/

17
18
----oo0oo---19
On November 8, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in
20
defendant’s favor (Docket No. 66), and final judgment was entered
21
in the case.

Defendant has submitted a cost bill totaling

22
$1,459.80.

(Docket No. 69.)

Plaintiff did not object to

23
defendant’s bill of costs.
24
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
25
and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing
26
parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28
27
U.S.C. § 1920.

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

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); E.D. Cal.

4

Local R. 292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482

5

U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated

6

in § 1920).

7

The court exercises its discretion in determining
See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

8

whether to allow certain costs.

9

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

10

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

11

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

12

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

13

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

14

costs to the prevailing party.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

102 F.3d at 1523; see also E.D. Local R. 54-292(d) (“If no

19

objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter

20

costs.”).

21

The losing party has

See Russian River Watershed Prot.

After reviewing the bill of costs, and in light of the

22

fact that plaintiff has not objected, the court finds the

23

following costs to be reasonable:

24

Fees for service of summons and subpoena:

25

Fees for printed or electronically

26

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained

27

for use in the case:

28

Fees for exemplification and the costs

$90.00

$1,137.45

2

1

of making copies of any materials where

2

the copies are necessarily obtained for

3

use in the case:

$232.35

4

Total

$1,459.80

5

Accordingly, costs of $1,459.80 will be allowed.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED:

March 23, 2012

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3