Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobcat Company
Defendant
Jayme Bruce
Plaintiff
Jessica Bruce
Plaintiff
Tina Bruce
Plaintiff
Clark Equipment Company
Defendant
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Defendant
Melroe Company
Defendant
Samuel Wilds
Defendant
Wilds Horticultural Services, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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----

TINA BRUCE, JAYME BRUCE, a NO. CIV. S-05-01766 WBS KJM

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina ORDER RE: COSTS

Bruce, and JESSICA BRUCE, a 

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina 

Bruce,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY,

BOBCAT COMPANY, MELROE

COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND

COMPANY, WILDS HORTICULTURAL

SERVICES, INC., SAMUEL WILDS,

and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 27, 2007, the court granted summary judgment

for defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company (“Ingersoll”) on all claims. 

Ingersoll now submits a cost bill totaling $8,804.77.

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, which are generally subject to limits set under 28

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 69 Filed 06/20/07 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

U.S.C. § 1920. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“costs 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, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable

costs to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920).

The court exercises its discretion in determining

whether to allow certain costs. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The

losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also L.R. 54-

292(d) (“If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax

and enter costs.”).

Plaintiffs object to $2,693.43 in costs submitted by

defendant Ingersoll, which seek reimbursement for mileage, travel

expenses, and meals for Ingersoll’s attorney. While travel and

lodging costs for an expert witness are generally considered

compensable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Lovell v. Chandler, 303

F.3d 1039, 1058 (9th Cir. 2002), attorney travel and lodging

costs are more properly recovered pursuant to a motion for

attorney’s fees. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 69 Filed 06/20/07 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

F.2d 1536, 1556 (9th Cir. 1992), modified in part by Davis v.

City and County of San Francisco, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Thus these costs are not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and the

court will exclude them. See Kern v. Levolor Lorentzen, Inc.,

899 F.2d 772, 795 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing City Bank of Honolulu

v. Rivera Davila, 438 F.2d 1367, 1371 (1st Cir. 1971) (travel

expenses not recoverable as costs under 28 USC § 1920)).

After reviewing the remaining costs, and in light of

the fact that plaintiffs have not objected, the court finds, with

the exception of several mathematical errors, all remaining costs

to be reasonable. Specifically: 1) Ingersoll’s total for “Other

Costs” incorrectly read $2,806.40, whereas the total costs

itemized under that category are $2,806.48; and 2) Ingersoll’s

total for “Fees for service of summons and subpoena” incorrectly

read $417.76, whereas the total costs itemized under that

category are $417.46. Thus, Ingersoll’s cost request should have

totaled $8,804.55, assuming all requested costs were added

correctly. Accordingly, after subtracting the improper request

for $2,693.43 in travel and lodging reimbursement, costs of

$6,111.12 will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 19, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 69 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 3