Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 877 Defendant's Motion for Re-Taxation of Costs and 878 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File a Motion to Retax Costs are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,
Case No.: 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-NJK
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Re-Taxation of Costs (ECF No. 877) filed by
Defendant DFT, Inc. dba The Cannon Management Company (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Copper
Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response (ECF No. 879), and
Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 882). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to
Extend Time to File a Motion to Retax Costs (ECF No. 878), to which Defendant filed a
Response (ECF No. 881).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides for costs as follows:
(1) Costs Other Than Attorney’s Fees. 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. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may
be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs on 14 days’
notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (emphasis added). In conjunction with this rule, the District of Nevada
Local Rules state: “Any motion to retax costs shall be filed and served within seven (7) days
after receipt of the notice.” (D. Nev. LR 54-14).1
The District of Nevada Local Rules were amended on May 1, 2016. (See General Order 2016-01 (D. Nev.
2016)). Because both the Clerk’s Memorandum regarding Taxation of Costs and the instant motions were all
Page 1 of 2
Here, on February 12, 2016, Defendant timely filed a Verified Memorandum of Costs.
(ECF No. 860). On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendant’s costs and
Motion to Retax and Settle Costs. (ECF No. 864–65). Defendant filed a Reply in support of its
costs (ECF No. 870) and a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Retax and Settle Costs (ECF
No. 871). Plaintiff then filed a Reply supporting its Motion to Retax and Settle Costs. (ECF
On March 31, 2016, the Clerk filed a Memorandum regarding Taxation of Costs and
taxed costs for Defendant in the amount of $53,537.65. (ECF No. 874). Eleven days later, on
April 11, 2016, Defendant filed its motion requesting re-taxation of costs. (ECF No. 877).
Then, on April 14, 2016, fourteen days after the Clerk taxed the costs in this case, Plaintiff filed
its motion to extend time regarding re-taxation of costs. (ECF No. 878).
The Court finds that both of the instant motions were untimely filed. Both the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Nevada Local Rules clearly provide a seven-day
deadline to file a motion to re-tax costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); (D. Nev. LR 54-14). These
motions were filed beyond that deadline.2 As such, the Court denies both motions as untimely.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Re-Taxation of Costs (ECF
No. 877) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Motion to Retax Costs (ECF No. 878)
DATED this ___ day of March, 2017.
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
filed prior to this date, the Court will apply the prior version of the District of Nevada Local Rules, dated August
1, 2011. (See General Order 2011-02 (D. Nev. 2011)). However, this deadline is the same in both versions.
The fact that Plaintiff’s request is a motion to extend time is insufficient as it was untimely when filed.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?