Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01381/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01381-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN BURGOON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NARCONON OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01381-EMC 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL OF 

CLERK’S TAXATION OF COSTS

Docket No. 123

Plaintiffs have asked the Court to review the taxation of costs by the Clerk of the Court. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (providing that “[t]he clerk may tax costs on 14 days‟ notice” and 

that, “[o]n motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk‟s action”). 

Having considered the papers submitted, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 

without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for April 7, 2016. The Court VACATES

the Clerk‟s taxation of costs.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the taxation of costs was premature. Civil Local Rule 

54-1(a) provides that “[n]o later than 14 days after entry of judgment or order under which costs 

may be claimed, a prevailing party claiming taxable costs must serve and file a bill of costs.” Civ. 

L.R. 54-1(a). Here, there has been no entry of final judgment. Defendants contend that, although 

no final judgment has been entered, it was not premature to seek costs because the rule also allows 

a party to ask for costs after entry of an “order under which costs may be claimed.” The problem 

with this argument is that Defendants have not demonstrated that an order compelling arbitration 

is an “order under which costs may be claimed.”

In fact, it makes little sense to treat the Court‟s order compelling arbitration as an “order 

under which costs may be claimed.” The Court‟s order not only compelled arbitration but also 

Case 3:15-cv-01381-EMC Document 130 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

stayed the case; thus, future litigation in the case is not foreclosed. Moreover, that future litigation 

will in fact take place is all but confirmed by the fact that the parties have stipulated to the filing of 

a second amended complaint with new named plaintiffs in lieu of Mr. Burgoon (who has now 

settled his claims) and Mr. Landers (who has been compelled to arbitration). Because additional 

costs are likely to still be incurred (and by both sides), it makes no sense for this Court (or the

proposed transferee court) to take a piecemeal approach to costs – i.e., to make a ruling on costs 

now and then make another ruling on costs in the future.

Moreover, Defendants have failed to take into account that costs under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) are to be awarded to “the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). 

Defendants have cited no authority to establish that a court evaluates prevailing party status on an 

issue-by-issue basis. In fact, the authority is to the contrary – i.e., that there is only one prevailing 

party and the entirety of the action must be evaluated in assessing who that prevailing party is. 

See, e.g., Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that there can be 

only one prevailing party as indicated by the phrase “„the prevailing party‟”; adding that, “even in 

mixed judgment cases, punting is not an option; Rule 54 does not allow every party that won on 

some claims to be deemed a „prevailing party‟ [and,] [f]or the purposes of costs and fees, there can 

be only one winner”).

1 Here, Defendants may have successfully compelled arbitration and 

obtained a stay (at least temporarily), but that does not speak as to who is the prevailing party on 

the substantive claims, either as asserted by Mr. Burgoon and Mr. Landers or the new proposed 

named plaintiffs.

///

///

///

 

1 Of course, in Shum, the court did note that, “[d]epending on the extent and nature of the 

prevailing party‟s victory, it may be proper for the trial court to award only low costs or no costs 

at all.” Shum, 629 F.3d at 1367 n.8; see also Barber v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 254 F.3d 1223, 

1234-35 (10th Cir. 2001) (stating that, “in cases in which the prevailing party has been only 

partially successful, some courts have chosen to apportion costs among the parties or to reduce the 

size of the prevailing party‟s award to reflect the partial success[;] [o]r, in cases in which „neither 

side entirely prevailed, or when both sides prevailed, or when the litigation was thought to be the 

result of fault on the part of both parties,‟ some courts have denied costs to both sides”).

Case 3:15-cv-01381-EMC Document 130 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates the Clerk‟s taxation of costs. The proper time for 

costs to be assessed will be when this litigation is concluded. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 123.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01381-EMC Document 130 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 3