Odds on Recording Studios, Inc. v. BCD Music Grp. Inc.

Full title: ODDS ON RECORDING STUDIOS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. BCD…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 7, 2011

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01754-RLH-GWF (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01754-RLH-GWF

10-07-2011

ODDS ON RECORDING STUDIOS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. BCD MUSIC GROUP, INC., a Texas corporation; DEEP DISTRIBUTION WORLDWIDE, INC., a Texas corporation; HARALD BLAKESLEEE, an individual; SUSHILA BLAKESLEE aka SUSHILA MITRA, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

ROGER L. HUNT

ORDER

(Motion for Relief from Order-#27)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Odds on Recording Studios Motion for Relief from Order (#27, filed June 14, 2011). The Court has also considered Defendants BCD Music Group, Inc., Deep Distribution Worldwide, Inc., Harald Blakeslee, and Sushila Blakeslee's Opposition (#28, filed July 1, 2011).

On March 22, 2011, the Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss this case both for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Five weeks later, Defendants submitted a bill of costs and an amended bill of costs on the same day. (Dkt. ## 23, 24). The first bill of costs requested $720.00, the amended one added a request for legal research costs and ballooned to $12,061.30. Plaintiffs did not object to this bill of costs and, therefore, the Clerk of Court taxed the costs approximately one month later. (Dkt. #25).

The Court withdraws the order taxing costs for two reasons. First, a bill of costs must be filed with the Court within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. Local Rule 54-1. Thus, Defendants' bill of costs was filed approximately three weeks too late. Second, the law does not permit for legal research costs to be taxed. 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Alexander Mfg., Inc. Employy Stock Ownership and Trust v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp 2d 1170, 1176-70 (D. Or. 2010). Thus, these costs should never have been taxed against Plaintiff (and Defendants counsel should never have requested them). Accordingly, the Court withdraws the order taxing costs under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) and its inherent authority to modify its own orders.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order (#27) is GRANTED.

ROGER L. HUNT

United States District Judge