J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Guerrero

Filing 15

ORDER ON COSTS re 14 Bill of Costs filed by J&J Sports Productions, Inc.. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENJAMIN H. GUERRERO a/k/a
BENJAMIN GEURRERO individually, and
d/b/a LORENITA’S MEXICAN
RESTAURANT AND CANTINA a/k/a
LORENITA’S RESTAURANT AND
CANTINA,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. SA-15-CV-347-XR

Defendant.
ORDER ON COSTS
On this date, the Court considered J&J Sports Productions, Inc.’s (“J&J”) Bill of Costs
(docket no. 14). Because J&J was the “prevailing party,” the Court awarded costs to J&J
pursuant to Rule 54(d) and 47 U.S.C. § 605. J&J seeks a total award of $1,120.00 in costs:
$400.00 for its filing fee, $95.00 for service of process, and $625.00 for investigative
expenses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that costs “shall be allowed as of
course to the prevailing party.” Section 605 states that “[t]he court . . . shall direct the
recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who
prevails.” 47 U.S.C. § 605 (2006) (emphasis added). Courts disagree about the meaning of
“full costs” under the statute. Compare United Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Spree, Inc., 600 F.
Supp. 1242 (E.D. Mich. 1984) (declining to award investigation expenses), with Kingvision

1

Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Autar, 426 F. Supp. 2d 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (concluding that “full costs”
under § 605 included investigation expenses).
First, it is undisputed that under the “full costs” language of § 605, courts must award a
prevailing party the costs allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (the general rule governing costs).
DirecTV, LLC v. Ertem, Civ. Ac. No. 13-487, 2015 WL 459398, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2015)
(citing Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 529 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Section 1920 provides:
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as
costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of
any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use
in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance,
included in the judgment or decree.
28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2012).
J&J seeks $400 for filing fees, which are allowed as fees of the clerk. J&J also seeks
$95.00 for service of process. While this Court has held that private process service fees are
recoverable as costs, it is this Court’s practice to limit the amount to that charged by the
Marshal because the statute does not specifically authorize fees for service of process but

2

instead refers to “fees of the marshal.” Therefore, the $95.00 request is reduced to $65.00, the
fee charged by the Marshal for service of process.
Second, courts are split as to whether § 605 permits parties to recover costs associated
with investigation of the case.

Compare United Features, 600 F. Supp. at 1244, with

Kingvision, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 61. No Fifth Circuit case has examined the issue. However,
the majority of trial courts who have made the inquiry have awarded reasonable investigative
fees. See, e.g., J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Brazilian Paradise, LLC, 789 F. Supp. 2d 669,
677 (D.S.C. 2011); J&J Sports Prods. v. Maria’s Kitchen, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83312
at *13 (D. Mass. 2011); Kingvision, 426 F.Supp.2d at 61; Comcast of the S. v. McCullar, 2006
WL 1663598 at *7 (E.D. Tenn. 2006); Csc Holdings v. J.R.C. Prods., 158 F. Supp. 2d 899,
905 (N.D. Ill. 2001). This Court finds these cases persuasive.
J&J seeks $625.00 for investigative expenses. This Court finds that this amount is
reasonable and the Court will allow J&J to recover this amount.
In sum, $1,090.00 in costs are awarded to J&J as follows:
(1) $400.00 filing fee
(2) $65.00 for service of summons
(3) $625.00 for investigative costs
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 13th day of November, 2015.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3