Marx v. General Revenue Corporation

Filing 82

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs. Ordered that the plaintiff's motion to alter/amend the judgment 77 is denied. Ordered that the defendant's motion for review of taxation of costs 81 is denied by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 07/15/10.(jjh, )

Marx v. General Revenue Corporation

Doc. 82

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 08-cv-02243-RPM OLIVEA MARX, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER/AMEND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS _____________________________________________________________________ On June 8, 2010, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter/Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), [77], seeking to vacate that part of the order awarding the defendant costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) based on 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Support for the plaintiff's position is provided by the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rouse v. Law Offices. The defendant responded, asserting that in addition to Rule 54(d), the Court should award costs under Rule 68 because of an offer of judgment prior to trial. The plaintiff responded, challenging the validity of the terms of the Rule 68 offer. The Ninth Circuit opinion is not persuasive. The statutory language requiring a finding of bad faith and harassment is applicable only for an award of attorney fees and does not displace Rule 54(d). Additionally, costs should be awarded under Rule 68.

Dockets.Justia.com

The defendant also filed a motion for a review of the Clerk's taxation of costs of $4,543.03, seeking an additional amount for deposition transcripts and travel costs. The additional amounts are not awarded as a matter of this Court's discretion. It is now ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to alter/amend the judgment [77] is denied and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's motion for review of taxation of costs [81] is denied. DATED: July 15th, 2010 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch __________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

2