From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nance v. Miser

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 31, 2014
No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD) (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2014)

Opinion

No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD)

10-31-2014

Keith Preston Nance, Plaintiff, v. Allen Miser, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

The Court granted Defendants' summary judgment motion and entered judgment against Plaintiff on September 22, 2014; Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal the following week (Docs. 36-37, 38). Defendants filed their application for bill of costs on October 6, 2014 (Doc. 41). Plaintiff moves to postpose a decision on taxing costs because of the appeal.

As explained in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-1846, 2014 WL 4745933, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014), pursuant to the Advisory Committee Notes for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), "If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee notes on 1993 amendments. This Committee Note has consistently been applied to requests for costs as well as claims for fees. See e.g., Friends of Tahoe Forest Access v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 12-1876, 2014 WL 1575622, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014) (exercising its discretion and finding no basis to defer a decision on the bill of costs pending plaintiffs' appeal); Lasic v. Moreno, No. 05-161, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007 ("The reasoning of the Advisory Committee's note is applicable to a ruling on a bill of costs."); accord Pixion Inc. v. PlaceWare Inc., No. 03-2909, 2005 WL 3955889, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005) (declining to grant a stay on the taxation of costs pending appeal).

The Court, in its discretion, will deny Plaintiff's request to defer taxation of costs. Defendants, as prevailing parties, have an interest in prompt payment of its costs and the fact that Plaintiff has taken an appeal of this Court's decision does not lessen that interest.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Postpone Bill of Costs (Doc. 44) is denied.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2014.

/s/_________

Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Nance v. Miser

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 31, 2014
No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD) (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2014)
Case details for

Nance v. Miser

Case Details

Full title:Keith Preston Nance, Plaintiff, v. Allen Miser, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 31, 2014

Citations

No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD) (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2014)

Citing Cases

Rademaker v. Paramo

(ECF No. 43-5 at 28:12-18.) The facts in Nance v. Miser are sufficiently analogous to those here, and the…