Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01967/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01967-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

PLANETPRO, INC. Bk. Ct. No. 03-23152-C-11

Debtor. Adv. Case No. 03-2271

 /

SEETARAMA SARMA,

NO. CIV. S-03-1967 LKK

Appellant,

v.

O R D E R

PLANETPRO, INC.,

Appellee.

 /

This action came before this court on several appeals filed 

by appellant Seetarama Sarma concerning a series of orders and

rulings by the bankruptcy court. The court decided the matters

on appeal and entered its orders on January 21, 2005 and March

1, 2005. Appellant Sarma filed a bill of costs with the Clerk

of Court requesting costs on appeal. Appellee Planet Pro

objects to the request on the grounds that the court has not

Case 2:03-cv-01967-LKK Document 111 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1 On February 22, 2005, Planet Pro filed a Notice of Appeal

with respect to the January 21 Order. On March 4, 2005, Sarma filed

a “Notice of Cross-Appeal” with respect to both the

January 21 Order and the March 1 Order.

2

awarded costs to any party. As I explain below, appellee’s

contentions are well-taken. 

Costs on bankruptcy appeals are governed by Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure 8014. That rule provides that “costs shall

be taxed against the losing party on an appeal.” Fed. R. Bank.

Proc. 8014. “If[,] [however,] a judgment is affirmed or

reversed in part, or is vacated, costs shall be allowed only as

ordered by the court.” Id. Here, the court nowhere ordered

costs in favor of either party; accordingly, the Clerk of the

Court cannot enter costs for appellant in this matter. 

To the extent that appellant’s request for costs is

construed as a motion to award costs in his favor, that request

is denied. Here, an award of costs lies within the court’s

discretion because, contrary to appellant’s contention, there

was no prevailing party. As explained in the court’s orders,

appellant’s appeals were denied in part and granted in part.1

Further, appellant does not present any convincing arguments why

appellee should bear appellant’s costs when it successfully

defended against some of his appeals. 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-01967-LKK Document 111 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, an award of costs for appellant is not

warranted in the instant matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 3, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:03-cv-01967-LKK Document 111 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3