Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03699/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03699-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Designer Skin, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

S&L Vitamins, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3699-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Currently before the Court is S&L Vitamins, Inc. d/b/a Body Source d/b/a

thesupplenet.com’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Costs pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. #125.) Designer Skin, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response on

September 29, 2008 (Dkt. #127), and Defendant filed a Reply on October 6, 2008. (Dkt.

#133.) Although styled as a motion for costs, given the nature of the arguments presented,

the Court will treat Defendant’s motion as a Motion for Clarification of the Court’s

September 5, 2008 Order. (Dkt. #124.) The Court now issues the following Order.

On September 5, 2008, this Court entered final judgment and a permanent injunction

in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502. (Dkt. #124.) Under Title 17 of the United

States Code, “the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any

party . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 505. In its discretion, the Court ordered and decreed that “each

party shall bear its own costs in this matter.” (Dkt. #124.) 

Case 2:05-cv-03699-JAT Document 149 Filed 04/09/09 Page 1 of 4
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

In clarifying the September 5, 2008 Order, the Court does not address whether

Defendant is actually entitled to recover costs pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

- 2 -

However, at the time final judgment was entered, the Court did not have any

information before it regarding Defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment. Under Rule 68, if

a plaintiff rejects a defendant’s offer of judgment, and the judgment finally obtained by the

plaintiff is not more favorable than the offer, the plaintiff must pay the costs incurred

subsequent to the offer. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(d). The award is mandatory; Rule 68 leaves

no room for the court’s discretion. See United States v. Trident Seafoods Corporation, 92

F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 1996). As such, the Court’s decree in its September 5, 2008 Order

was in reference to costs permitted to be recovered under 17 U.S.C. § 505; it did not address

whether Defendant was entitled to recover costs pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.1

Plaintiff argues, assuming arguendo that Defendant is entitled to recover costs under

Rule 68, the Court must deny Defendant’s request because it failed to file a bill of costs

required by LRCiv 54.1. Rule 54.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

[a] party entitled to costs shall, within 10 days after the entry of

final judgment, unless time is extended under Rule 6(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, file with the Clerk of the Court and

serve upon all parties, a bill of costs on a form provided by the

Clerk. This bill of costs shall include a memorandum of the

costs and necessary disbursements, so itemized that the nature

of each can be readily understood, and, where available,

documentation of requested costs in all categories must be

attached.

LRCiv 54.1. 

Defendant’s Motion for Costs was filed on September 15, 2008, 4 days before

Defendant was required to file a bill of costs pursuant to LRCiv 54.1. Defendant however

contends that it was not required to file a bill of costs because the Court’s September 5, 2008

Order provided that neither party was entitled to recover costs, and therefore LRCiv 54.1 was

not applicable at the time Defendant filed its motion. Given the ambiguity in the Court’s

Case 2:05-cv-03699-JAT Document 149 Filed 04/09/09 Page 2 of 4
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

In the alternative, the Court finds that Defendant’s belief regarding the necessity to

file a motion for costs rather than a bill of costs, at a minimum, establishes that Defendant’s

failure to comply with LRCiv 54.1 was due to excusable neglect. “When any act may or

must be done within a specified time, the court may for good cause, extend the time: . . . (B)

on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable

neglect.” Therefore, were Defendant to file a motion for extension of time to file, the Court

would grant such a motion.

- 3 -

September 5, 2008 regarding the recovery of costs, the Court will also treat the instant

motion as a motion for extension of time to file a bill of costs. 

Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen an act may or must be

done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or

without motion or notice if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time or its

extension expires . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). Defendant’s motion was timely filed;

therefore the Court may for good cause shown grant an extension of time to file. See id.

In its motion, Defendant addresses LRCiv 54.1 and concludes that “a bill of costs

would only properly be submitted upon a ruling by the Court granting this motion and setting

a deadline for such submission.” Clearly, Defendant was aware of LRCiv 54.1. If Defendant

had been aware that this Court’s September 5, 2008 Order regarding fees was not in

reference to costs pursuant to Rule 68, the Court finds that it is probable that Defendant

would have timely filed a bill of costs rather than its instant motion. Accordingly, the Court

finds that Defendant has shown good cause for an extension of time to file,2

 and will permit

Defendant to submit a bill of costs within ten days of this Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

6(b)(1)(A).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED clarifying the Court’s September 5, 2008 Order.

The Court’s Order that “each party shall bear their own costs in this matter” was in reference

to the recovery of costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The September 5, 2008 Order did not address

whether Defendant was entitled to recover costs pursuant Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Case 2:05-cv-03699-JAT Document 149 Filed 04/09/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have ten days from the entry of

this Order to file a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Costs pursuant to Rule

68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. #125.)

DATED this 8th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-03699-JAT Document 149 Filed 04/09/09 Page 4 of 4