Chavis Van & Storage of Myrtle Beach, Inc. et al v. United Van Lines, LLC et al

Filing 146

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration # 144 is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants may file any opposition to plaintiffs' motion for review of costs by April 21, 2014. No reply brief is permitted. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/14/14. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHAVIS VAN & STORAGE OF
MYRTLE BEACH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV1299 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs ask me to
reconsider that portion of my April 9, 2014 Memorandum and Order ordering the Clerk of Court
to tax costs. Because plaintiffs’ time to file written objections to the bill of costs before the Clerk
of Court taxed them had expired under our local rules, I ordered the Clerk to tax those costs. The
Court still retains discretion to consider any timely motion to review the Clerk’s action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). I need not reconsider my prior Order because it only relates to the
Clerk’s administrative procedure of taxing costs under the local rules and does not impede
plaintiffs’ ability to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Of course, plaintiffs could have
made life easier by complying with the local rules and filing their objections before the Clerk of
Court actually taxed them, but true to form plaintiffs insist on making even this issue more
difficult.1 I may therefore consider plaintiffs’ motion for review of costs without any need to
reconsider my prior Memorandum and Order.
Accordingly,
1

Court.

If objections are filed, the bill of costs is then treated as a motion and ruled upon by the

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration [#144] is denied
as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants may file any opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for review of costs by April 21, 2014. No reply brief is permitted.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 14th day of April, 2014.

-2-