From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armado v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 9, 2012
No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT

10-09-2012

Gisela E. Armado, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, Defendant.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for relief from the taxation of costs.

On May 14, 2012, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs. Doc. 50. Plaintiff had 14 days to file objections. Local Rule Civil 54.1(b). Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Clerk of the Court taxed costs on June 4, 2012. Doc. 51. Plaintiff had 7 days to file a motion for review with the District Court. Local Rule Civil 54.1 (b). Plaintiff did not file within 7 days, and by operation of the Local Rule, the taxation judgment became final on June 12, 2012.

Plaintiff filed the currently pending motion on July 27, 2012. The Court will deny the motion because it is untimely. Alternatively, the Court denies the motion because the Court does not find a basis for setting aside the taxation judgment for the substantive reasons provided in Defendant's response (Doc. 53.). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Relief Awarded Taxation of Costs (Doc. 52) is denied.

__________________

James A. Teilborg

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Armado v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 9, 2012
No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Armado v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs.

Case Details

Full title:Gisela E. Armado, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 9, 2012

Citations

No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2012)