Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. State of California et al
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/28/13 ORDERING that the defendants' bill of costs is DENIED in it's entirety. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION
COUNCIL, INC.,
11
NO. CIV. S-13-0040 LKK/DAD
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
O R D E R
19
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his
official capacity as Governor
of the State of California;
KAMALA HARRIS, in her official
capacity as Attorney General
of the State of California; and
TOM TORLAKSON, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of
Public Instruction and Director
of Education for the State of
California,
20
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
/
21
22
The court is in receipt of the Defendant State of California’s
23
filed bill of costs in the above-captioned matter, ECF No. 6, as
24
well as Plaintiff Law School Admission Council, Inc.’s filed
25
objections to the bill of costs, ECF No. 7.
26
////
1
1
Defendants seek $523.23 for the costs of filing, serving, and
2
copying their notice of removal of this case from the Sacramento
3
County Superior Court, as well as attendant costs for postage and
4
mileage.
See Defs’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 6.
5
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, “[u]nless a
6
federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise,
7
costs–-other
8
prevailing party.”
than
attorney’s
fees–-should
be
allowed
to
the
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1).
9
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff Law School Admission Council,
10
Inc., voluntarily dismissed this action, pursuant to Federal Rule
11
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any answer or motion for
12
summary judgment on the part of the Defendants’ was filed or
13
served.
Pl’s Not., ECF No. 5.
14
This type of voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of
15
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), “leaves the parties as though no action
16
had been brought.”
17
(9th Cir. 1997).
18
action had been brought, neither party has prevailed in the action.
19
Defendants are, therefore, not entitled to the costs typically
20
awarded to a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
21
54.
22
23
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692
Because, here, the parties are left as though no
Defendants’ bill of costs, ECF No. 6, is DENIED in its
entirety.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED:
February 28, 2013.
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?