Opinion
No. CIV. S-04-0620 WBS KJM.
February 17, 2006
ORDER RE: COSTS
On November 21, 2005, the court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff then submitted a cost bill totaling $729.48. Defendant does not object.
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54-292(f) govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, 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) ("[C]osts other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. . . ."); L.R. 54-292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920). The district court has discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters' Lab., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523.
After reviewing the bill, the court finds all costs to have been previously awarded by order of this court. (See Jan. 20, 2006 Order.)
Accordingly, costs of $729.48 will be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.