Cherrone, et al v. Florsheim Development, et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/1/2013 ORDERING 33 that costs of $774.24 be taxed against plaintiffs in favor of defendants. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16

CONNIE CHERRONE, RICARDO
DOMINGUEZ, DENISE ELLIS,
THOMAS HOOVER, HAZEL
SARMIENTO, THELMA KNIGHTON,
HENRY KNIGHTON, VICENT MACIAS,
SHAHANNY MACIAS, TRAVIS
MARTIN, KATIE MARTIN, DUC TAN
NGUYEN, STEPHEN ORTEGA, DALE
RISENHOOVER, KRISTA REGO, and
JARED STERRITT,

NO. CIV. 2:12-02069 WBS CKD
ORDER

17
Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
20
21
22
23

FLORSHEIM DEVELOPMENT, a
California Corporation;
FLORSHEIM PROPERTIES, a
California Corporation; ROSE
PETALS, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company;
ROSE PARK, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1-300 inclusive,

24
Defendants.
25

/

26
27
28

----oo0oo---Judgment was entered in favor of defendants, (Docket
1

1

No. 30), and defendants submitted a bill of costs for $774.24 in

2

copying fees, (Docket No. 33).

3

the costs pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 292(c).

4

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)

5

(“[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(d) creates a presumption

6

in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and it is

7

incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs

8

should not be awarded.”)

9

Plaintiffs have not objected to
See

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule

10

292(f) govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are

11

generally subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

12

U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court

14

order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--

15

should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); E.D. Cal. Local R.

16

292(f).

17

courts have awarded copying fees in similar cases, the court

18

finds defendants’ bill of costs appropriate under the

19

circumstances.

20

Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (1990).

21

See 28

Reviewing the submitted exhibit and considering that

See e.g., Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Double Rainbow

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that costs of $774.24 be taxed

22

against plaintiffs in favor of defendants.

23

DATED: June 1, 2013

24
25
26
27
28
2