Dahlin v. Frieborn ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DAHLIN, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02585-MCE-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROSEMARY FRIEBORN, et al. 15 Defendant. 16 On April 29, 2020, this Court entered a judgment in favor of Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ request for costs of $2,446.85 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1920. Def. Mem. Supp., ECF No. 125. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Disallowance 20 of Costs, which this court construes as objections to Defendants’ request. Pls. Mot. 21 Opp’n., ECF No. 126.1 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 22 request in part. 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 /// 27 1 The Court is aware that Plaintiffs’ objections are untimely by two days. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 28 292(c). It nonetheless considered Plaintiffs’ arguments in reaching its decision here. 1 Local Rule 292(a) provides that costs shall be taxed to the prevailing party in 2 conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and “such other provisions of law as may be 3 applicable.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing party in a 4 lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court otherwise directs.” The language of 54(d) 5 “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, but vests in the 6 7 district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n Of Mexican-Am. Educators v. 8 State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). If the court 9 exercises its discretion in declining an award, it must specify the “specific reasons” for 10 doing so. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 Conversely, the court need only find that the reasons, put forth by the losing party, for 12 denying costs “are not sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption” in favor of 13 an award. Id. at 946. 14 15 The Defendants costs can be characterized in two categories: copying costs in 16 the amount of $1,723.85, and $723.00 for the cost of private process servers. Def. 17 Mem., ECF No. 125. Copy charges are properly taxable if they are “necessarily 18 obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Here, the burden is on the 19 prevailing party to demonstrate the amount of taxable costs. Cal. Sportfishing Alliance v. 20 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01456, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92655 at *2–3 (E.D. 21 Cal. July 1, 2014). 22 23 Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Bill of Costs and supporting memorandum and 24 declarations, the Court overrules all but one of the Plaintiff’s objections. Regarding the 25 copying costs, the Defendant’s invoices and supporting filings do not adequately 26 describe the $870.00 itemized as “advanced fees.” “Plaintiffs do not know what the 27 advanced fees were,” Pls. Mot., ECF No. 126, 3, and neither does the Court. 28 1 Regarding the subpoena costs, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs’ objections and 2 | concludes that private process server's fees are properly taxable as costs. 28 U.S.C. § 8 1920(1); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs, Inc., 941 F.2d 175, 178 (9th Cir. 1990). Consistent with the foregoing, then, the Court orders that the Clerk of the 6 Court: (1) tax costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $1576; and (2) terminate the 7 | Motion at ECF No. 126. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. {I LEK Dated: January 19, 2021 tes AES 10 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, 1 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28