Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK OSEI, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GMAC MORTGAGE; COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

LOANS; BANK OF AMERICA FKA 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; 

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, 

INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,INC.; DBA 

DELTA MORTGAGE AND REAL ESTATE; 

JEFFREY ALAN PELLETIER, JEFFREY 

PAUL OLSEN; JEFFREY BRYAN 

DELORA, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 09-CV-2534-JAM-GGH 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR COSTS 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Patrick 

Osei’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Opposition (Doc. #68) to the Bill of 

Costs and Motion for Award of Costs (Doc. #66) submitted by 

Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 69 Filed 05/20/10 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

27

28

and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 

(“Defendants”). 

Defendants seek $634.46 in costs. Eastern District Local 

Rule 292(b) requires a Bill of Cost be supported by a memorandum 

of costs and an affidavit of counsel that the costs claimed are 

allowable by law, are correctly stated, and were necessarily 

incurred. Defendants failed to comply with the Local Rule, as 

the necessary memorandum and affidavit were not filed with the 

Bill of Costs. 

However, Eastern District Local Rule 292(c) also requires 

objections to costs be filed within seven (7) days from the date 

of service of the Bill of Costs. Plaintiff failed to comply with 

the Local Rule, as the opposition was untimely filed. 

“Pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, a prevailing party should be awarded costs, unless a 

court order provides otherwise. As such the rule creates a 

presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party. 

The losing party bears the burden of making a showing that the 

award of costs would be inequitable under the circumstances. 

While a district court has discretion to deny costs, it must 

specify reasons explaining why a case is not ordinary and why, 

in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable 

to award costs.” Beecham v. City of West Sacramento, 2009 WL 

1438667 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2009) (internal citations omitted). 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 69 Filed 05/20/10 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

27

28

Here, both parties have violated the Local Rules regarding 

the taxing of costs. The Court nonetheless has examined the 

matter on the merits, and finds that it would be inequitable to 

tax costs against the losing party in this matter. Defendants, 

the prevailing parties, are major financial corporations. 

Plaintiff, the losing party, is facing foreclosure of his home 

and has limited financial resources. The Ninth Circuit has 

approved the losing party’s limited financial resources as a 

reason for refusing to award costs to a prevailing party. 

Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of 

California, 231 F.3d 572, 592 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the 

Court declines to award costs due to Plaintiff’s financial 

situation. 

ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for 

Award of Costs is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2010 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 69 Filed 05/20/10 Page 3 of 3