Umpqua Bank v. First American Title Insurance Company
Filing
82
ORDER RE: COSTS signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/18/11 ORDERING that costs of $6,823.36 will be allowed. (Kastilahn, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
NO. CIV. 2:09-3208 WBS EFB
UMPQUA BANK, an Oregon
chartered bank,
13
ORDER RE: COSTS
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California
corporation,
17
18
Defendant.
___________________________/
19
----oo0oo----
20
21
On October 12, 2011, the court granted defendant’s
22
motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 70), and final judgment
23
was entered in the case.1
Defendant has submitted a cost bill
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the final
judgment. (See Docket No. 74.) The court retains jurisdiction
to tax costs following the filing of a Notice of Appeal. See
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sullivan Props., Inc., CIV No. 04-00550,
2007 WL 4390665, at *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 17, 2007) (adopting special
master’s report); see also Riggs v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., Inc.,
Civil No. 08-03058, 2010 WL 2228569, at *3 (W.D. Ark. June 1,
1
1
totaling $13,592.01.
2
amount submitted on three grounds: (1) defendant’s bill of costs
3
is untimely; (2) expert witness fees are improperly charged; and
4
(3) travel expenses are improperly charged.
5
Defendant agrees to reduce the amount of its Bill of Costs by
6
$6,768.65 to reflect the amount improperly requested for expert
7
witness and travel expenses.
8
3:22-24 (Docket No. 81).).
9
(Docket No. 71.)
Plaintiff objects to the
(Docket No. 77.)
(Reply to Opp’n to Bill of Costs at
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
10
and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing
11
parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28
12
U.S.C. § 1920.
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules,
14
or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s
15
fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); E.D. Cal.
16
Local R. 292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482
17
U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated
18
in § 1920).
19
See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs);
The court exercises its discretion in determining
See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d
20
whether to allow certain costs.
21
1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has
22
discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within
23
the meaning of § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc.,
24
914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same).
The losing party has
25
26
27
28
2010) (“[C]ourts have held that, when an award of costs are not
the subject of the appeal, a district court may tax costs
pursuant to Rule 54 after a notice of appeal has been filed.”)
(citing cases); Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., No.
07-61295, 2009 WL 806587, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2009).
2
1
the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding
2
costs to the prevailing party.
3
Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998)
4
(noting that the presumption “may only be overcome by pointing to
5
some impropriety on the part of the prevailing party”); Amarel,
6
102 F.3d at 1523; see also E.D. Local R. 54-292(d) (“If no
7
objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter
8
costs.”).
9
See Russian River Watershed Prot.
Defendant’s Bill of Costs was untimely submitted.
10
Final judgment was entered on October 12, 2011, and the bill of
11
costs was filed on October 27, 2011.
12
that the cost bill is to be submitted within fourteen days of
13
judgment, which in this case would have been October 26, 2011.
14
The defendant’s Bill of Costs was therefore one day late.
15
court may exercise its discretion when presented with tardy
16
papers.
17
substituted into the case shortly before the deadline for
18
dispositive motions and she was not in possession of the receipts
19
necessary to file the bill of costs.
20
Costs at 1:26-2:21.)
21
extension of time within the original time, the court nonetheless
22
concludes that defendant’s failure was due to excusable neglect.
23
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s Bill of Costs
24
on the ground of untimeliness is rejected.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Local Rule 292 provides
The
Defendant’s counsel was
(Reply to Opp’n to Bill of
Although defendant did not seek an
3
1
After reviewing the bill of costs, the court finds the
2
following costs to be reasonable:
3
Fees of the clerk
4
Fees for printed or electronically
5
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained
6
for use in the case:
7
Fees for exemplification and the costs
8
of making copies of any materials where
9
the copies are necessarily obtained for
$353.00
$6,164.16
10
use in the case:
$306.20
11
Total
$6,823.36
12
Accordingly, costs of $6,823.36 will be allowed.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
DATED:
November 18, 2011
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
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?
