Jimenez v. Sambrano, et al

Filing 411

ORDER Denying 410 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Review of Bill of Costs by Court. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 2/22/2010. (mjj) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ, 12 13 v. 14 R. SAMBRANO, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 04cv1833-L(PCL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 18, 2010 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Review of Bill of Costs

18 by Court. A hearing on Defendants' Bill of Costs is currently set before the Clerk of Court for 19 February 23, 2010. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application is DENIED. 20 Plaintiff requests a court review of Defendants' Bill of Costs. Federal Rule of Civil

21 Procedure 54(d)(1) provides for taxing of costs by the clerk, and gives the party dissatisfied with 22 the clerk's action the opportunity to file a motion for review by court. In this case, a hearing 23 before the clerk is scheduled for February 23, 2010; therefore, no clerk action has yet issued. 24 Although Plaintiff may be correct in his argument that Defendants should not recover costs, he 25 has not cited any legal authority for the proposition that Defendants' Bill of Costs must forego 26 clerk's action and be considered by the court in the first instance. While The Association of 27 Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, relied upon by Plaintiff, holds that the 28 district court has discretion not to award costs, it does not address the procedural issue raised
04cv1833

1 here ­ whether or under what circumstances the clerk's action can be avoided altogether. 231 2 F.3d 572, 579, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is 3 DENIED. 4 5 6 DATED: February 22, 2010 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2
04cv1833

IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge