Anderson v. United States of America et al

Filing 206

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 201 Motion to Retax: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a second amended judgment reflecting an award of costs in the total amount of $1,973.64. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

INGE T. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

SCOTT ALAN ANDERSON,

12

Defendant.

NO. C17-0891RSL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX
AND/OR RECONSIDER

13
14
15
16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to retax costs and reconsider the
award of attorney’s fees. Dkt. # 201.
A. Attorney’s Fees and Compensation for Time
Plaintiff sought to recover legal fees paid to third-parties and compensation for the time

19

she spent on this litigation in both her motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. # 169) and her motion for

20

costs (Dkt. # 172). The Clerk of Court properly excluded these expenses from his taxation of

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

costs. The undersigned, however, awarded $8,360.50 in attorney’s fees after reviewing the fee
petition and supporting documentation. Billing entries that did not allow the Court to discern
what work was performed or what portion of the work related to enforcement of the Affidavit of
Support were found to be insufficient and were not awarded. Dkt. # 200 at 2 n.2.
In this motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that the billing records from her
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RETAX AND/OR RECONSIDER - 1

1

Virginia attorney “clearly” differentiate between hours spent on the divorce proceeding and

2

hours spent on I-864 issues. Dkt. # 201 at 3. She identifies six block-billed entries that she

3

asserts should have been awarded. Two of them, from 8/21/15 and 8/23/15, were, in fact,

4
5

awarded. Plaintiff misquotes the other four entries in an effort to make it appear that they relate

6

solely to the Affidavit of Support.1 They do not. Because these four entries lump together

7

recoverable and unrecoverable fees with no way to differentiate between them, they were not,

8

and will not be, awarded.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

B. Copying
The Clerk of Court properly awarded copying costs as a subset of the $794.81 awarded
for “service of summons and subpoena / copy costs.” Dkt. # 198 at 2.
C. Other Costs
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) authorizes an award of costs (other
than attorney’s fees) to the prevailing party, the Supreme Court has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1920
enumerates the costs that may be taxed under the rule. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons,
Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987). The Clerk of Court properly limited the award of “costs” to
those specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
D. Transcripts

21

Plaintiff has submitted invoices for transcripts in the amount of $808.00. She asserts that

22

the transcripts were included as exhibits, with the implication being that they were “necessarily

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

For example, plaintiff asserts that the task performed on 8/19/15 was “research on affidavit of
support” and the associated fees of $1,650.00 should have been awarded. Dkt. # 201 at 3. In the billing
records, however, the tasks are described as “prep for trial / research on affidavit of support.” Dkt.
# 172-5 at 3.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RETAX AND/OR RECONSIDER - 2

1

obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). These expenses are allowable.

2
3

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to retax and/or reconsider is

4
5
6

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a second
amended judgment reflecting an award of costs in the total amount of $1,973.64.

7
8
9
10

Dated this 6th day of March, 2020.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RETAX AND/OR RECONSIDER - 3