Opinion
NO. CIV. 2:12-1154 WBS KJN
07-06-2012
MIKE KREIDLER, Insurance Commissioner for the State of Washington and as Receiver for Cascade National Insurance Company, in Liquidation, Plaintiff, v. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a federally-authorized division of Blue Lake Rancheria Economic Development Corporation, Defendant.
ORDER RE: COSTS
On June 26, 2012, the clerk filed an entry of default judgment against defendant. (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiff has submitted a cost bill totaling $925.00. (Docket No. 12.) Defendant did not object to plaintiff's bill of costs.
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) ("Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney's fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party."); E.D. Cal. Local R. 292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated in § 1920).
The court exercises its discretion in determining whether to allow certain costs. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within the meaning of § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption "may only be overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the prevailing party"); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also E.D. Local R. 54-292(d) ("If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter costs.").
Plaintiff seeks $400.000 for "filing fees for pro hac vice applications for Victoria Vreeland and Victor Torres." (Docket No. 12.) Neither Rule 54 nor 28 U.S.C. § 1920 specifically authorizes pro hac vice fees to be taxable as costs and there is no consensus among federal courts as to whether such fees are recoverable under § 1920. Some courts have held that such fees are not recoverable. See, e.g., Knauff v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., No. SA-08-CV-336-XR, 2010 WL 2545424, at *1-2 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2010); Gidding v. Anderson, No. C 07-04755 JSW, 2008 WL 5068524, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008); Competitive Techs. v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. Civ. A. 02-1673, 2006 WL 6338914 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006); see also Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1100 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding without analysis that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying taxation of pro hac vice fees). Some courts have allowed the recovery of pro hac vice fees as fees of the clerk. See, e.g., Craftsmen La., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 579 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 2009); Semmaterials, L.P. v. Alliance Asphalt, Inc., No. CV 05-320-S-LMB, 2007 WL 676675, at *3 (D. Idaho Mar. 1, 2007).
The court agrees with those courts that have held that pro hac vice fees are not recoverable as costs. They are an expense that an attorney pays for the privilege of practicing law in this court, and defendant should not be responsible for paying these fees simply because plaintiff chose to be represented by counsel who are not admitted to practice in this district. Accordingly, the court will not allow the requested $400.00 for pro hac vice fees to be taxed as costs.
After reviewing the bill of costs, and in light of the fact that defendant has not objected, the court finds the following costs to be reasonable:
Fees of the Clerk: $350.00
Fees for service of summons and subpoena: $175.00
Total $525.00
Accordingly, costs of $525.00 will be allowed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE