Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01517/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01517-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BANK OF THE WEST, a California 

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GAIL WORTHEN, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-1517 SI

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO TAX COSTS

Defendant Gail Worthen has filed a motion to tax costs, which is scheduled for a hearing on

April 7, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate

for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing.

On February 26, 2008, plaintiff/judgment creditor Bank of the West filed a “Memorandum of

Costs After Judgment” stating that plaintiff claimed a total of $19,439.49 in post judgment costs.

(Docket No. 34). The Memorandum of Costs was filed pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 685.070,

which provides that a judgment creditor may claim certain costs related to enforcing a judgment

provided the costs are sought not later than two years after they were incurred. That section also

provides that a judgment debtor may, within 10 days of the filing of the Memorandum of Costs, object

to the costs memorandum by filing a “motion to tax costs.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 685.070(c)-(d). 

 

Case 3:03-cv-01517-SI Document 54 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant’s motion to tax costs contends that at least some of plaintiff’s claimed costs should

be disallowed because they were incurred more than two years ago. Plaintiff acknowledges in its

opposition that some of its costs were incurred more than two years ago and should be disallowed; thus,

plaintiff states, it is not seeking $19,439.49, but some lesser amount. However, it is unclear from

plaintiff’s papers and supporting declaration exactly how much plaintiff is seeking, and if plaintiff has

submitted documentation of all the claimed costs. 

In the Court’s view, the parties should be able to resolve this dispute since they agree that certain

types of costs incurred within the last two years are recoverable, and it appears to be a simple matter of

meeting and conferring and reviewing documentation of costs. However, if the parties are unable to

resolve this matter, the Court directs plaintiff to file a revised Memorandum of Costs with supporting

documentation no later than April 14, 2008. If defendant wishes to file a motion to tax costs based upon

the revised Memorandum of Costs, defendant may do so. The Court will then take the matter under

submission. The Court DENIES defendant’s motion to tax costs without prejudice to renewal as stated

in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01517-SI Document 54 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2