Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00079/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00079-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENSOURCE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK A. WILLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS

[Doc. No. 219.]

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff EnSource Investments LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

motion to re-tax costs. (Doc. No. 219.) On March 9, 2020, Defendants Beyond Review, 

LLC (“Beyond Review”), Image Engine, LLC (“Image Engine”), and Willis Group, LLC 

(“Willis Group”) filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 225.) On 

March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. No. 226.) For the reasons below, the Court 

denies the motion to re-tax costs without prejudice. 

On December 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this Court alleging 

that Defendants, including Mark A. Willis, Beyond Review, Image Engine, and Willis 

Group, defrauded Plaintiff into investing in a start-up company. (Doc. No. 93.) 

On December 6, 2019, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in 

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 228 Filed 03/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

favor of Defendants Beyond Review, Image Engine, and Willis Group on all of Plaintiff’s 

claims. (Doc. No. 159 at 25–26.) 

On January 2, 2020, Defendants Beyond Review, Image Engine, and Willis Group 

filed their bill of costs in the amount of $5,211.57. (Doc. No. 167.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition to Defendants’ bill of costs on January 23, 2020. (Doc. 177.) On January 29,

2020, the Clerk of Court presided over a hearing regarding taxation of costs (Doc. No. 

172), and on January 30, 2020, Defendants filed an amended bill of costs in the amount of 

$6,303.76. (Doc. No. 189.) On February 10, 2020, the Clerk of Court awarded costs in 

the amount of $4,377.74 for the Defendants. (Doc. No. 202.)

The District Court reviews the clerk’s bill of costs de novo. See, e.g., K.J.P. v. Cty. 

of San Diego, No. 15-CV-02692-H-MDD, 2019 WL 4193364, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 

2019). “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—

other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Local Rule 54.1(a). This rule creates a presumption 

in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby 

Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The Court may, however, deny costs at its discretion in cases where it would be 

“inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. 

California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000). Proper grounds for denying costs include:

(1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the 

prevailing party; and (3) the chilling effect of imposing . . . high costs on future 

civil rights litigants, as well as (4) whether the issues in the case were close 

and difficult; (5) whether the prevailing party’s recovery was nominal or 

partial; (6) whether the losing party litigated in good faith; and (7) whether 

the case presented a landmark issue of national importance.

Quan v. Comput. Scis. Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted) abrogated on other grounds by Fifth Third Bancorp v. 

Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 417–419 (2014). This list of reasons for denying costs to a 

prevailing party is not meant to be “an exhaustive list,” but merely “a starting point for 

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 228 Filed 03/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

analysis.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Ass’n of Mex.–Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 592–93). 

Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny the award of costs to Defendants Beyond 

Review, Image Engine, and Willis Group because Plaintiff prevailed against Defendant 

Mark A. Willis, Plaintiff is entitled to costs in a mixed judgment, and any costs incurred 

by Defendants Beyond Review, Image Engine, and Willis Group would have been incurred 

by Defendant Willis since all Defendants were represented by the same counsel. (Doc. No. 

219-1.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to costs because Defendants Beyond 

Review, Image Engine, and Willis Group prevailed on summary judgment, there was no 

mixed judgment with respect to these Defendants, and Plaintiff provided no legal basis to 

assert costs based on equity.

1

 (Doc. No. 225.) 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. The Court declines to 

reconsider the taxation of costs until all costs in the case have been assessed, including any 

costs Plaintiff seeks against Defendant Willis. (See Doc. No. 224.) The Court reserves the 

right to have the parties clarify the costs that were incurred by Defendants Beyond Review, 

Image Engine, and Willis Group, separate and apart from the costs incurred by Defendant 

Willis. See, e.g., Taddeo v. Am. Invsco Corp., No. 2:12-CV-01110-APG-NJK, 2016 WL 

320111, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2016); Bruce v. Clark Equip. Co., No. S-05-01766-WBSKJM, 2007 WL 2433331, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2020

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

1

In reply, Plaintiff makes three new arguments to support its claim for re-taxing costs based on 

equity: Plaintiff contends that the issues were close or difficult, Defendant is entitled only to partial 

recovery, and Plaintiff litigated in good faith. (Doc. No. 226.)

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 228 Filed 03/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3