Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02733/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02733-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
Future Ford
Defendant
David Landeis
Plaintiff

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

DAVID LANDEIS, suing No. 2:04-cv-2733-MCE-PAN

individually and on behalf

of the general public,

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

FUTURE FORD, FORD MOTOR

COMPANY, and DOES One through

Ten,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 14, 2006, this Court granted summary adjudication in

favor of Defendant Future Ford (“Future Ford”) as to Plaintiff’s

claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). Because the Court concluded that the

requisite amount in controversy limit had not been satisfied, the

Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining federal claim, for

breach of the Magnusson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 2301, et seq. (“MMWWA”) on grounds that subject-matter

jurisdiction was lacking. 

Case 2:04-cv-02733-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Future Ford’s original Bill of Costs, filed June 26, 2006, 1

was for $3,120.20. As attached to the Declaration of Keith

Nourot in Reply to Plaintiff’s Objections to the original cost

bill, however, Plaintiff filed an Amended Bill of Costs for

$2,848.21.

Although Plaintiff cites authority for the proposition that 2

a party obtaining a dismissal for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction is not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of

Rule 54(d) (see Miles v. Cal., 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2003),

here there is no question that Future Ford was a prevailing party

with respect to Plaintiff’s FCRA claim. Moreover, even with

respect to the MMWA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the

court may still order the payment of “just costs pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1919.” Id. at 988, n.2.

2

Finally, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state law claims given the lack of a cognizable

federal claim and consequently dismissed those claims without

prejudice.

Future Ford, as the prevailing party in this litigation, has

now filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $2,848.21. Plaintiff 1

has filed Objections to that request.

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

party in a lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court 2

otherwise directs.” As this language suggests, the ultimate

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

discretion. Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal.,

231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to Local Rule

54-292(a), costs are awardable in conformity with the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and such other provisions of law as may be

applicable. In addition, Local Rule 54-292(f)(11) allows the

court to tax other items it believes should be compensable “in

the interest of justice.” 

Case 2:04-cv-02733-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Future Ford provided written documentation for its claimed 3

costs in Reply to Plaintiff’s Objections, which asserted, inter

alia, that such documentation should have been provided.

3

If the court declines to award costs as requested by the

prevailing party it should specify its reasons for doing so. 

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

Here, the Court finds that court reporter fees as requested

in the amount of $1,501.30 were necessarily obtained for use in

the case and should be taxed. With respect to towing charges in 3

the amount of $500.00, Future Ford indicates in its original Bill

of Costs that the expenditure was necessary because Plaintiff

refused to drive his vehicle to Future Ford for an inspection and

demanded that the vehicle instead be towed. Plaintiff does not

dispute that factual contention in objecting to the costs bill. 

Under those circumstances, the Court believes that the interests

of justice mandate inclusion of the towing bill as a compensable

cost.

The Court nonetheless rejects the remaining $847.09 sought

by Future Ford. With respect to the $467.50 in witness fees,

that sum represents Future Ford’s expense in paying for

depositions of Plaintiff’s experts. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b)(4)(C), the party seeking to depose another side’s

experts is responsible for paying a reasonable fee for the

deposition. Future Ford claims that such fees can subsequently

be claimed as costs by the prevailing party, on grounds that

Rule 26(b)(4)(D) provides a statutory basis for recovering such

fees. 

While there is authority for that proposition outside the

Case 2:04-cv-02733-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Ninth Circuit (see, e.g., Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 266

F.3d 418, 427 (6th Cir. 2001), that authority is not binding on

this Court. The Court’s own review of Rule 24's language reveals

nothing that would provide an independent basis for anything

other than the proposition that the fees of expert discovery are

to be borne by the party seeking such discovery. Rule

24(b)(4)(C) does not state that such fees are reimbursable. 

Additionally, while the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Local

Rule 54-292(f) provide that compensation of court-appointed

experts may be recoverable as costs, neither the statute nor this

Court’s rule extends that scope to party-retained experts. The

Court accordingly declines to tax the fees paid by Future Ford

for deposing Plaintiff’s experts.

The final cost item rejected by the Court concerns the

$379.59 incurred by defense counsel in attending the deposition

of Plaintiff’s expert, Rocco Avelini, in Las Vegas. Future

Ford’s counsel has cited no authority to support the contention

that Plaintiff should be responsible for their costs in traveling

to Las Vegas because Mr. Avelini declined to be deposed within

the Eastern District. Indeed, had Mr. Avelini agreed to come to

Sacramento, defense counsel would have been responsible for his

costs in doing so under Rule 24(b)(4)(C), and that expense would

not have been recoverable as set forth above.

///

///

///

/// 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02733-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Given the foregoing, costs are taxed in favor of Future Ford

in the sum of $2,001.12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02733-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 06/21/07 Page 5 of 5