Cooley v. Marshal et al

Filing 287

ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 285 Cooley's motion for costs and post-judgment interest; directing the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with this order. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/4/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

FREDERICK MARC COOLEY,

Case No. 2:09-cv-00559-MMD-GWF
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
SHARON MEADS, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Before the Court is Plaintiff Frederick Marc Cooley’s motion for costs and post-

13

judgment interest (“Motion”) (ECF No. 285). 1 The Court finds that Cooley is not entitled to

14

the costs he requests and that he should be awarded a much smaller award of post-

15

judgment interest than he seeks. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion in part and

16

deny it in part.

17

II.

BACKGROUND

18

The Clerk entered judgment in favor of Cooley and against Defendant Sharon

19

Meads for damages in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to a jury verdict. (ECF No. 228.)

20

On June 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s denial of Meads’

21

motion for judgment as a matter of law. (ECF No. 240.) The appellate court also concluded

22

that this Court erred in not providing a punitive damages instruction and remanded for a

23

new trial solely on that issue. (Id. at 4.) That trial was held on January 8–10, 2019. (See,

24

e.g., ECF Nos. 270, 273, 274.) The jury found for Cooley and awarded him $2,200.00 in

25

punitive damages. (ECF No. 273.)

26

///

27

///

28

1In

addition to the Motion, the Court has considered Meads’ response (ECF No.
286). Cooley did not reply.

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

Cooley seeks an award of costs in the amount of $4,380.58 for his travel expenses

3

related to attending both trials. (ECF No. 285 at 3.) Cooley breaks down his travel

4

expenses into his total round trip miles, between Vallejo, California—where he resides—

5

and Las, Vegas, Nevada, as well as $400 for gas and $450 for lodging. (Id. at 6–10.) He

6

specifically calculates his mileage based on the fees allowed for trial witnesses. (Id. at 3,

7

19.) Meads challenges Cooley’s request, arguing that Cooley cannot recover such costs.

8

(ECF No. 286 at 2–3.) The Court agrees with Meads. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (not

9

including recovery of mileage and travel expenses by a party as taxable costs); Delehant

10

v. United States, No. 3:10-CV-178-AC, 2012 WL 6455808, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2012)

11

(citations omitted) (“Although Delehant did testify as a fact witness at trial, the prevailing

12

view in the Ninth Circuit is witness fees are not allowed to parties.”); Gillam v. A. Shyman,

13

Inc., 31 F.R.D. 271, 273 (D. AK. 1962) (“Witness fees in the federal court are not allowed

14

to parties to the action.”). Accordingly, the Court denies Cooley’s request for cost based

15

on his travel expenses.

16

While the Court finds that Cooley is entitled to post-judgment interest, he is not

17

entitled to the large sum he requests based on the applicable interest calculation. In a civil

18

case brought in federal court, post-judgment interest is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

19

Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 290 (9th Cir. 1995);

20

28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Such interest is “calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment,

21

at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . ..” 28

22

U.S.C. § 1961(a). Cooley seeks post-judgment interest of $2,255.00 improperly based on

23

state law and as of November 19, 2014, when the jury returned verdict in his favor. (ECF

24

No. 285 at 3–4.) Meads argues that under § 1961 Cooley is entitled to $105.40. (ECF No.

25

286 at 3, 5 (affidavit including the post-interest calculation).) This is the amount owed from

26

the date the Clerk entered the relevant damage award, August 3, 2015 (ECF No. 228),

27

through when Meads issued the $10,000 check for damages, October 10, 2018 (ECF No.

28

///
2

1

285 at 15). (ECF No. 286 at 3, 5.) The Court agrees with Meads and will therefore enter

2

post-judgment interest for Cooley in the amount of $105.40.

3

IV.

CONCLUSION

4

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

5

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

6

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before

7

the Court.

8

It is therefore ordered that Cooley’s motion for costs and post-judgment interest

9

(ECF No. 285) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the requested costs

10

but grants Cooley’s request for post-judgment interest in the amount of $105.40. The Clerk

11

is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order.

12

DATED THIS 4th day of November 2019.

13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3