Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01883-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance 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

S&L OIL, INC., a California No. 07-cv-01883-MCE-KJM

corporation; S&L OIL JV, 

a California joint venture; 

and, THREE WIVES, INC., a 

California corporations,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TAXING COSTS

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New York

Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New York

Corporation,

Counter-Claimant,

v. 

S&L OIL, INC., a California

corporation; S&L OIL JV, a 

California joint venture;

THREE WIVES, INC., a California

corporations; and NICK GOYAL,

an individual,

Counter Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:07-cv-01883-MCE -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/05/10 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

2

Defendant and Counter-Claimant Zurich American Insurance

Company (“Zurich”) the prevailing party in this litigation, has

filed a Bill of Costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the

amount of $1,811.25. Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants S&L Oil,

Inc., a California corporation, S&L Oil JV, a California joint

venture, Three Wives, Inc., a California corporation, and Nick

Goyal (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) have

objected to certain portions of that costs bill.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing

party in a lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court

otherwise directs”. As this language suggests, the ultimate

decision on whether to award costs is a matter within the court’s

discretion. Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State

of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9 Cir. 2000). If the Court th

declines to award costs as requested by the prevailing party,

however, it should specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v.

Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909. 921 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Here the Court need only address the two specific items

objected to by Plaintiffs in response to Zurich’s Bill of Costs. 

First, according to Plaintiff’s objections to Zurich July 27,

2009 objections to Zurich’s Initial Application fo Tax Costs,

filed on July 10, 2009, Zurich failed to initially establish that

its claimed exemplification fees were “necessarily obtained for

use in the case” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Thereafter, by

Order filed August 21, 2009, Zurich was directed to provide

further documentation as to the source and nature of its claimed

costs.

Case 2:07-cv-01883-MCE -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/05/10 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

3

On August 28, 2009, in accordance with the Court’s

instruction, Zurich submitted a revised Bill of Costs along with

a detailed Supplemental Declaration from Zurich’s counsel,

Kathleen E. Hegen, concerning the both the nature and the

necessity of the photocopying expenses sought. In that

Declaration, Ms. Hegen carefully delineates why the copying

charges were essential and how the costs were calculated. She

also attached documentation of the summary pages and cost

itemization submitted as part of her firm’s invoices to Zurich. 

Plaintiffs have filed no objection to that revised documentation. 

The Court finds the photocopy charges to have been reasonably and

necessarily incurred.

Plaintiffs also object, however, to $44.57 in Federal

Express charges included within Zurich’s Bill of Costs. Those

costs are not recoverable. Communications charges like courier,

mail, telephone, telex and fax costs cannot be taxed. El-Fadl v.

Central Bank of Jordan, 163 F.R.D. 389, 390 (D. D.C. 1995). 

Given the foregoing, costs are taxed in favor of Plaintiff

as stated in his Bill of Costs, except with respect to the

Federal Express charges in the amount of $54.70. Total costs are

therefore awarded in the sum of $1,756.70.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01883-MCE -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3