J&J Pumps, Inc. v. Star Insurance Company

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/29/2011. Defendant's costs of $476.80 will be ALLOWED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

J & J PUMPS, INC., a
California corporation,

NO. CIV. 2:11-599 WBS CMK

13
Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: COSTS

14
v.
15
16

STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Michigan corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18

/

19
----oo0oo---20
21

On June 9, 2011, the clerk entered final judgment in

22

favor of defendant pursuant to the Court’s Order granting

23

defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

24

(Docket Nos. 24-25.)

25

$476.80, (Docket No. 26), to which plaintiff has not filed any

26

objections.

27
28

Defendant submitted a cost bill totaling

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing
1

1

parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28

2

U.S.C. § 1920.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

1920).

9

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

The court exercises its discretion in determining

10

whether to allow certain costs.

11

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

12

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

13

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

14

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

15

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

16

costs to the prevailing party.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

The losing party has

See Russian River Watershed Prot.

Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

After

23

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

24

to be reasonable:

25

Fees of the Clerk:

26

Fees for printed or electronically

27

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained

28

for use in the case:

$350.00

$18.00
2

1

Fees for exemplification and the costs

2

of making copies of any materials where

3

the copies are necessarily obtained for

4

use in the case:

$88.80

5

Docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923:

$20.00

6

Total:

$476.80

7

Accordingly, costs of $476.80 will be allowed.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

July 29, 2011

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