Kenney v. San Diego, City of et al

Filing 723

ORDER: The motion to re-tax, requesting review of the Order taxing costs, filed by Plaintiff John Kenney (ECF No. 706 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/10/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOHN B. KENNEY,

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

v.
KASEYLEE LAWRENCE,
MATTHEW KOEBER,

CASE NO. 13cv248 WQH-AGS
Plaintiff,

ORDER

Defendant.
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the request to review the Order taxing costs filed
by Plaintiff John Kenney. (ECF No. 706).
On April 2, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant
to the verdict of the jury .
On April 11, 2018, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs requesting costs in the amount
of $9,183.33, for fees for service of process, transcripts, witness fees, and copy costs.
Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On July 6, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered an “Order taxing costs” in the
amount of $4,485.58.
On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this Court review the
order taxing costs. Defendants filed an opposition.
“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise,
costs--other than attorney’s fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “A review of the decision of the clerk in the taxation of costs may be
-1-

13CV248 WQH

1 taken to the court on motion to re-tax by any party in accordance with Rule 54(d), Fed.
2 R. Civ. P., and Civil Local Rule 7.1.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 54.1(h).
3

After review of the pleadings and the Order taxing costs, the Court concludes that

4 the taxing of costs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was
5 proper. “Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the
6 prevailing party which may only be overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the
7 part of the prevailing party that would justify a denial of costs.” Russian River
8 Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998).
9 The Order taxing costs (ECF No. 703) properly concluded that the costs to subpoena
10 Miki Shimada and Plaintiff’s experts, the witness fees for Miki Shimada, and the
11 copying fees for two sets of exhibit binders are recoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and
12 S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 54.
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to re-tax, requesting review of the

14 Order taxing costs, filed by Plaintiff John Kenney (ECF No. 706) is denied.
15 DATED: October 10, 2018
16
17

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

13CV248 WQH