Paugh et al v. Ashley Valley Medical Center et al, No. 2:2017cv01249 - Document 248 (D. Utah 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 245 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 246 Motion to request judicial review of taxation costs. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 2/15/2024. (alf)

Download PDF

Paugh et al v. Ashley Valley Medical Center et al Doc. 248 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TRISTEN CALDER, as personal representative of the estate of COBY LEE PAUGH, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Case No. 2:17-CV-1249-JNP-CMR v. UINTAH COUNTY, et al., District Judge Jill N. Parrish Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero Defendant. The court entered judgment against Plaintiff on August 18, 2023. ECF No. 230. Defendants then filed their bill of costs on September 11, 2023. ECF No. 231. The clerk of court concluded that total costs taxed and allowed are $13,089.98 and are included in the Judgment. ECF No. 244.1 Plaintiff had the opportunity to file a motion to request the court’s review of the clerk’s action within seven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“The clerk may tax costs on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk’s action.”). Two days after that deadline had passed, Plaintiff filed two motions, neither of which is opposed. First, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to request judicial review of taxation of costs. ECF No. 245. Plaintiff then filed a motion to request judicial review of taxation of costs. ECF No. 246. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 245) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to request judicial review of taxation of costs (ECF No. 246) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court informed Plaintiff that arguments regarding the equity of awarding costs could be raised before the court by filing an appropriate motion. See ECF No. 244, at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); DUCivR 542(b)(2)(E)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com I. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME “Courts may allow untimely filings ‘if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.’” Perez v. Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247, 1253 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)). Excusable neglect may be shown through four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and whether it was beyond the movant’s reasonable control, and (4) good faith. See id.; see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s motion to extend time was filed on January 26, 2024, two days after the deadline to file a motion requesting judicial review of the taxation of costs had passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see also DUCivR 54-2(b)(2)(E) (“A party may seek judicial review of the taxation of costs by filing a motion within 7 days of the clerk’s entry of the bill of costs.”). Nonetheless, the court finds that each excusable neglect factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion to extend time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). There is not danger of prejudice to the Defendants because Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, the extension of time is short, and the case is currently closed. Those facts also demonstrate that granting Plaintiff’s motion to extend would neither cause significant delay nor impact judicial proceedings. Plaintiff has provided a reason for the delay that was beyond its control—Plaintiff’s counsel was unexpectedly called to assist with a two-day jury trial within the seven-day period after the Clerk entered the taxation of costs. No bad faith or improper motive appears to have caused the delay. The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to extend time, finding that Plaintiff’s two-day delay in filing its motion to request judicial review of the taxation of costs was caused by excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 2 II. MOTION TO REQUEST JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and District of Utah Local Rule of Civil Practice 54-2(b)(2)(E), “Plaintiff requests judicial review of the Court Clerk’s Taxation of Costs filed January 17, 2024.” ECF No. 246. This cursory request constitutes the entirety of Plaintiff’s motion for judicial review of taxation of costs. A motion before this court “must include the following: (A) an initial separate section stating succinctly the specific relief sought and the grounds for the relief; and (B) a recitation of relevant facts, supporting authority, and argument.” DUCivR 7-1(a)(1).2 Plaintiff’s motion contains neither required element. The motion requests “judicial review” without setting forth what error or issue the taxation of costs might contain that judicial review might remedy. And Plaintiff’s motion contains no facts, authority, or argument in support of its request for relief. In short, the motion is void of any substantive argument. The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion for judicial review of taxation of costs. ORDER For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 245) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to request judicial review of taxation of costs (ECF No. 246) is DENIED. Signed February 15, 2024 BY THE COURT ______________________________ Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge The requirement to include facts and supporting authority under DUCivR 7-1(a)(1)(B) does not apply to every motion. See DUCivR 7-1(a)(2) (listing motions that do not require all of the same elements). But a motion for judicial review of taxation of costs is not among those motions to which a different standard applies. 2 3

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.