Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02576/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02576-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Erma J. Alaniz
Plaintiff
Robert M. Peppercorn
Defendant
Robert M. Peppercorn, M.D., 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 The Bill lists $12,792.91 in total costs. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERMA J. ALANIZ, No. 2:05-cv-02576-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN, M.D.,

INC. and ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Erma Alaniz (“Alaniz”) submitted a Bill of Costs

in the above-referenced matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920,

following a jury verdict in favor of Alaniz reached on June 26,

2008. While Defendants do not dispute the Alaniz’s entitlement 1

to costs as the prevailing party in this litigation, they do take

issue with certain categories of costs claimed by Alaniz, arguing

that those items are unreasonable and/or unnecessary and should

consequently not be allowed. 

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 192 Filed 08/08/08 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

2

The Court has reviewed Alaniz’s Bill of Costs, along with

the documentation submitted in support thereof, and has further

reviewed Defendants’ objections. Costs are awarded to Alaniz as

set forth below.

STANDARD

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

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

otherwise directs”. As this language suggests, the ultimate

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

discretion. Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State

of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000). If the Court

declines to award costs as requested by the prevailing party,

however, it should specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v.

Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). Claims for cost

items not properly documented will generally not be allowed. 

English v. Colorado Dept. Of Corrections, 248 F.3d 1002, 1013

(10th Cir. 2001).

ANALYSIS

Defendants first object to hotel expenses of $997.92

incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel. Although Rule 54(d) allows

broad discretion to courts to award costs, the court may not tax

costs beyond those authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Crawford

Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987). 

///

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 192 Filed 08/08/08 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

 Defendant also objects to $15 in parking fees incurred by 2

Plaintiff’s Counsel during the trial. This cost is associated

with expenses in attending court proceedings and may not be

taxed.

3

It is well established that an attorney's expenses in attending

both court proceedings are not recoverable as costs. Wahl v.

Carrier Mfg.. Co., Inc., 511 F.2d 209, 217 (7th Cir.1975). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not recover $997.92 of hotel expenses

included in the Bill of Costs.2

Next, Defendants object to Counsel’s online research fees of

$9.95. Those costs will not be taxed because the expense of

computerized legal research are properly deemed as a component of

the attorney's fee rather than a reimbursable cost under the

purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Invessys Inc. v. McGraw-Hill

Cos., Ltd., 369 F.3d 16, 22-23 (1st Cir.2004). Additionally,

conference call costs in the amount of $47.96 will not be taxed

because they do not fall under the provisions listed in § 1920. 

Finally, Defendants contest $750 in charges associated with

the re-service of subpoenas on witnesses to appear at trial. 

Section 1920 allows costs associated with service of subpoenas to

be taxed, and Defendants do not offer argument as to why reservice is unreasonable. The Court will allow the costs

associated with the service of these subpoenas to remain in

Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 192 Filed 08/08/08 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

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, costs are taxed in favor of Alaniz in

the sum of $11,722.08.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2008

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 192 Filed 08/08/08 Page 4 of 4