Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02504/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02504-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

3:16-CV-2504-CAB-DHB

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

PAMELA FOX KUHLKEN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN 

DIEGO SHERIFFS DEPUTY D. SMITH 

(Id # 1024) and DOES 1-5, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-CV-2504-CAB-DHB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RETAX COSTS

[Doc. No. 45]

On January 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

[Doc. No. 32], and the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants [Doc. No. 

33]. On January 30, 3018, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs totaling $5,147.90 [Doc. No. 

34], and a hearing was set for February 16, 2018 [Doc. No. 35]. On February 5, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit [Doc. No. 36], but at no point did she 

file a response or opposition to the Bill of Costs. As a result of the lack of opposition from 

Plaintiff, the hearing was vacated, and on February 16, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered an 

order taxing costs of $5,122.90. [Doc. No. 41.] The Clerk’s order called attention to “Local 

Rule 54.1.h which provides in part that a motion to re-tax by any party, in accordance with 

Rule 54(d), FRCivP and Local Rule 7.1, shall be served and filed within seven (7) days 

Case 3:16-cv-02504-CAB-DHB Document 47 Filed 03/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:16-CV-2504-CAB-DHB

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

after receipt of the Order Taxing Costs, or unless within the seven (7) day period the court 

permits the motion to be made orally.” [Id. at 2-3.]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment and the mandate 

was entered on April 12, 2019. [Doc. No. 42.] Now, two years after the order taxing costs 

was entered, and nine months after Plaintiff lost her appeal, Plaintiff has filed a motion to 

re-tax costs, on the grounds of financial hardship and because Plaintiff believes her case 

involved issues of substantial public importance. The Court need not address the merits of 

Plaintiff’s motion because, by failing to file her motion within seven days, Plaintiff waived 

her right to challenge the cost award. Walker v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 626 (9th Cir. 

1999) (“[W]e hold that a party may demand judicial review of a cost award only if such 

party has filed a proper motion within the five-day[1

] period specified in Rule 54(d)(1).”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs is DENIED. 

It is SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2020

 

1 The period has since changed to seven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 

Case 3:16-cv-02504-CAB-DHB Document 47 Filed 03/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2