Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00393-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH LAW

CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-0393 WBS DAD

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE: COSTS

ARIZONA BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On July 25, 2006, the court entered final judgment in

this case in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff had submitted a cost

bill totaling $2,494.28; defendant has not objected. 

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, which are generally 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) (“costs 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).

Case 2:05-cv-00393-WBS-DAD Document 99 Filed 10/10/06 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

The court exercises its discretion in determining

whether to allow certain costs. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The

losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also L.R. 54-

292(d) (“If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax

and enter costs.”).

After reviewing the bill, and in light of the fact that

the losing party has not objected, the court finds all costs to

be reasonable with the exception of a mathematical error in

adding the costs regarding fees and disbursements for printing;

plaintiff should have charged $648.78 instead of $649.98. 

Accordingly, costs of $2,493.08 will be allowed.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00393-WBS-DAD Document 99 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2