Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01649-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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----

CAROL DAVIS, JOHN DAVIS, and

MICHELLE TORIGIANI, 

NO. CIV. S-03-1649 WBS DAD

Plaintiffs, NO. CIV. S-04-0300 WBS GGH 

v. ORDER RE: COSTS

LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

LAURIE H. LABARE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________

TRIAD INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE

CORPORATION, and TIMCO AVIATION

SERVICES, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

HAWKINS & POWERS AVIATION, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant.

_______________________________

Case 2:03-cv-01649-WBS-DAD Document 149 Filed 10/25/05 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

On April 18, 2005, this court issued an order granting

summary judgment to third-party defendant Hawkins & Powers

Aviation, Inc. (“Hawkins”) against all claims made by Triad

International Maintenance Corporation and TIMCO Aviation

Services, Inc. (collectively, “TIMCO”). (Apr. 18, 2005 Order at

10). On September 26, 2005, judgment was entered against TIMCO

in favor of Hawkins. On October 4, 2005, Hawkins submitted its

bill of costs in the amount of $8,672.36. TIMCO does not object

to the bill.

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, 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) (“[C]osts 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, 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to

those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920). The district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters’ Lab.,

Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The losing party has

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed

Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th

Cir. 1998); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523.

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01649-WBS-DAD Document 149 Filed 10/25/05 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

After reviewing the bill, the court finds all costs to

be reasonable. Accordingly, costs of $8,672.36 will be allowed.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01649-WBS-DAD Document 149 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 3