Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00965/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00965-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Conlon Group of Arizona, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CNL Biltmore Real Estate, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-965-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion for review of the clerk’s award of costs to

Conlon (doc. 229). Defendants argue that based on our Order dated February 24, 2010 (doc.

227), Conlon is not the prevailing party and therefore is not entitled to costs under Rule

54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Conlon did not respond to the motion.

Rule 54(d)(1) provides that “costs–other than attorney’s fees–should be allowed to the

prevailing party.” Our local rule states that “[g]enerally, a party in whose favor judgment

is rendered is the prevailing party.” LRCiv 54.1(d). Notwithstanding that judgment was

entered in favor of Conlon, we held that Conlon is not the prevailing party for purposes of

an award of attorney’s fees given that it succeeded on only one of four claims and was

awarded only a fraction of the damages it sought. Order at 2. We ultimately concluded,

based on the totality of the litigation, that neither party is the prevailing party in this

litigation. 

Case 2:08-cv-00965-FJM Document 230 Filed 04/15/10 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 -

For the reasons stated in that Order, we also conclude that neither party is the

prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING

defendants’ motion for review of the clerk’s award of costs (doc. 229) and FURTHER

ORDERING that each party shall bear its own costs. That part of the “Taxation of Costs

Order” (doc. 228) awarding costs of $5,360.33 for plaintiffs is vacated.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00965-FJM Document 230 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2