Dahlin et al v. Frieborn et al

Filing 130

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/19/21 GRANTING IN PART 126 Motion for Disallowance of Costs. The Court orders that the Clerk of the Court: (1) tax costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $1576. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES DAHLIN, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-02585-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER

ROSEMARY FRIEBORN, et al.

15

Defendant.

16
On April 29, 2020, this Court entered a judgment in favor of Defendants.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ request for costs of $2,446.85 pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1920. Def. Mem. Supp., ECF No. 125. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Disallowance

20

of Costs, which this court construes as objections to Defendants’ request. Pls. Mot.

21

Opp’n., ECF No. 126. 1 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

22

request in part.

23
24
25
26

///
///
///

27
1

28

The Court is aware that Plaintiffs’ objections are untimely by two days. See E.D. Cal. Local R.
292(c). It nonetheless considered Plaintiffs’ arguments in reaching its decision here.

1

1
2
3

Local Rule 292(a) provides that costs shall be taxed to the prevailing party in
conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and “such other provisions of law as may be
applicable.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing party in a

4
lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court otherwise directs.” The language of 54(d)
5
6

“creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, but vests in the

7

district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n Of Mexican-Am. Educators v.

8

State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). If the court

9

exercises its discretion in declining an award, it must specify the “specific reasons” for

10
11

doing so. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
Conversely, the court need only find that the reasons, put forth by the losing party, for

12
13
14
15

denying costs “are not sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption” in favor of
an award. Id. at 946.
The Defendants costs can be characterized in two categories: copying costs in

16

the amount of $1,723.85, and $723.00 for the cost of private process servers. Def.

17

Mem., ECF No. 125. Copy charges are properly taxable if they are “necessarily

18

obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Here, the burden is on the

19
prevailing party to demonstrate the amount of taxable costs. Cal. Sportfishing Alliance v.
20
21
22

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01456, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92655 at *2–3 (E.D.
Cal. July 1, 2014).

23

Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Bill of Costs and supporting memorandum and

24

declarations, the Court overrules all but one of the Plaintiff’s objections. Regarding the

25

copying costs, the Defendant’s invoices and supporting filings do not adequately

26

describe the $870.00 itemized as “advanced fees.” “Plaintiffs do not know what the

27
advanced fees were,” Pls. Mot., ECF No. 126, 3, and neither does the Court.
28
2

1

Regarding the subpoena costs, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs’ objections and

2

concludes that private process server’s fees are properly taxable as costs. 28 U.S.C. §

3

1920(1); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs, Inc., 941 F.2d 175, 178 (9th Cir. 1990).

4
Consistent with the foregoing, then, the Court orders that the Clerk of the
5
6
7
8
9

Court: (1) tax costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $1576; and (2) terminate the
Motion at ECF No. 126.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2021

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