Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01630/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01630-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gisela E. Armado, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Advanced Call Center Technologies, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1630-PHX-JAT

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,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-01630-JAT Document 54 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

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

is denied.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01630-JAT Document 54 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2