Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00754-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bhupat R. Bhatti
Plaintiff
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Seleena Ulahannan
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----

BHUPAT R. BHATTI,

NO. CIV. S-05-754 WBS PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE: COSTS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SELEENA

ULAHANNAN, and DOES 1 to 50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 1, 2006, the court entered final judgment in

favor of defendants in this case. Defendants have submitted a

cost bill totaling $3,054.15. Plaintiff has not objected. 

Additionally, the fact that plaintiff subsequently filed an

appeal of the court’s underlying judgment has no bearing on the

court’s jurisdiction to consider this bill of costs. Cent.

States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Cartage Co., 992 F.

Supp. 980, 985 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“A district court may still

address ancillary matters, such as costs, while a case is pending

appeal.” (citing Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th

Cir. 1995))); see also United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407,

1413 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that “a motion for costs may be

Case 2:05-cv-00754-WBS-EFB Document 62 Filed 07/27/06 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

collateral to the action on appeal” if it “does not seek

reconsideration of substantive issues resolved in the judgment”),

overruled on other grounds by Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1480 (9th Cir. 1992).

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, subject to limits set under 28 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 district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs.,

Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The losing party has

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed

Protection 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.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00754-WBS-EFB Document 62 Filed 07/27/06 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

After reviewing the bill, the court finds all costs to

be reasonable. Accordingly, costs of $3,054.15 will be allowed.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00754-WBS-EFB Document 62 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 3