Century Surety Company v. Mo Foods, LLC et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/10/14: 73 Bill of Costs is denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, an
Ohio Corporation,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:13-cv-01387-GEB-EFB

ORDER

v.
MO FOODS, LLC, a limited
liability company; MANISH
PATEL, an individual; TMPM,
LLC, a limited liability
company; PRADIP PATEL, an
individual, NEHA PATEL, an
individual; SEAN CANILOA, an
individual; RUBEN MORALES; an
individual; WAYNE PERARANDA;
an individual; DEBORAH
PENARANDA; an individual; and
PATRICK PENARANDA; an
individual,
Defendants.

19
20

Judgment was entered in this case on May 16, 2014,

21

following the Court’s April 24, 2014 order granting Plaintiff’s

22

summary judgment motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Bill of

23

Costs on June 6, 2014, seeking to tax $2,535.83 in costs. (Pl.’s

24

Bill of Costs, ECF No. 73.)

25

Local

Rule

292

governs

the

taxation

of

costs,

and

26

provides in relevant part that a bill of costs may be filed and

27

served on all other parties “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after

28

entry of judgment.” E.D. Cal. R. 292(b).
1

1

Since Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs was filed more than

2

fourteen days after judgment was entered, it is untimely and is

3

denied. See Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F.2d 1360, 1375 n.43

4

(9th

5

costs . . . because the[] bill of costs was filed three days late

6

was not an abuse of discretion.”); see also Holmes v. Merck &

7

Co., No. 2:04-CV-00608-BES(GWF), 2008 WL 4791042, at *4 (D. Nev.

8

Oct. 29, 2008) (“Because the Court concludes that Defendant’s

9

Bill of Costs was untimely . . . , Defendant is not entitled to

Cir.

1976)

(“[T]he

district

10

recover its costs in this action.”).

11

Dated:

June 10, 2014

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

court’s

refusal

to

tax