Margaret Morris v. Kenneth Atchity et al, No. 2:2008cv05321 - Document 188 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Re Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment 184 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment does not reflect the prevailing parties in this Action and the respective Parties who a re entitled to recoup their costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Accordingly, the Final Judgment entered by this Court will include the payment of costs to the prevailing parties. As such, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment 184 . (lom)

Download PDF
Margaret Morris v. Kenneth Atchity et al Doc. 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Margaret Morris, 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 Kenneth Atchity, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 08-5321 RSWL (JCx) ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED JUDGMENT Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed 19 Judgment [184] are SUSTAINED. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) creates a 21 presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing 22 party. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of 23 California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000); National 24 Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 25 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s 26 Proposed Judgment does not reflect the prevailing 27 parties in this Action and the respective Parties who 28 are entitled to recoup their costs pursuant to Federal 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Accordingly, the Final 2 Judgment entered by this Court will include the payment 3 of costs to the prevailing parties. 4 As such, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objections 5 to Plaintiff’s Proposed Judgment. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: June 27, 2011 10 11 12 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior, U.S. District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.