Air Bob Inc v. G E Engine Services, No. 07-20006 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 10, 2008 No. 07-20006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk AIR BOB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE ENGINE SERVICES CORPORATE AVIATION, INC., doing business as Garrett Aviation Services, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:03-CV-1854 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Air Bob, Inc., sued GE Engine Services Corporate Aviation, Inc., doing business as Garret Aviation Services, alleging faulty repair of the plaintiff s air* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-20006 craft. In the bench trial, the district court granted a defense motion for what the parties refer to as a directed verdict, concluding that Air Bob has failed to present any evidence of a duty owed by Garrett that it breached. That order is correct, essentially for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order entered November 6, 2006. After entry of judgment, the district court awarded costs to defendant as the prevailing party. Plaintiff appeals the award to the extent it includes the cost of videotaped depositions. Defendant properly acknowledged in oral argument that the law in this circuit is that such costs are not taxable. See, e.g., Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135 F.3d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendant challenges that caselaw as erroneous, but we have no authority to overrule previous panel decisions. The award in this case is in error. The judgment granting a directed verdict is AFFIRMED. The order awarding costs is VACATED and REMANDED for recalculation in accordance with this opinion. 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.