Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02180/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02180-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDI Corporation
Defendant
Martin Ogden
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martin Ogden,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CDI Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV08-2180-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Martin Ogden has filed a motion for relief from this Court’s Judgment on 

Taxation. Doc. 156. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motion.1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), attorney’s fees and costs are treated 

differently. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 54 creates the 

presumption that courts will award a prevailing party its costs. Ass’n of MexicanAmerican Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000).2

 Trial courts have 

broad discretion in awarding costs, and are not required to “specify reasons” for awarding 

costs. Save our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944–45 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Defendant is incorrect in stating that a showing of impropriety is the only way to 

overcome such a presumption. See Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 

 

1

 The request for oral argument is denied; the issue is fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

2

 Several other circuits also recognize this presumption. See Klein v. Grynberg, 44 

F.3d 1497, 1506 (10th Cir.1995); Congregation of the Passion v. Touche, Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 219, 222 (7th Cir.1988).

Case 2:08-cv-02180-DGC Document 159 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

593 (overruling Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 

1995). Contrary to the non-binding case law that Defendant cites, the Ninth Circuit has 

explicitly disapproved the proposition that impropriety is the only reason costs can be 

denied. 231 F.3d at 593. Factors that weigh on the Court’s decision to deny costs also 

include the party’s limited financial resources. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 

231 F.3d at 592 (citing Nat’l Org. for Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th 

Cir.1982)). Thus, in order to defeat the presumption in favor of awarding costs, plaintiffs 

are allowed to use evidence of limited financial resources. 

Here, Plaintiff is asking this Court to alter its Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 

146) to more closely match the Court’s order denying without prejudice Defendant’s 

motion for attorney’s fees. Doc. 156. Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to change its 

judgment to include the phrase “[b]ecause this case is on appeal, Defendant’s motion for 

[costs] is denied without prejudice.” Id. This request proceeds from the mistaken 

premise that attorney’s fees and costs are to be treated the same. As both controlling case 

law and Rule 54 make clear, they are not treated the same. See, e.g., Ass’n of MexicanAmerican Educators, 231 F.3d at 592. Costs are presumptively awarded, whereas 

attorney’s fees are not. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Thus, Plaintiff’s only option for 

overcoming an award of costs was to provide the Court sufficient reasons to overcome 

the presumption favoring the awarding of costs. 

Defendant filed a Bill of Costs on March 21, 2011. Under Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54.1(b), Plaintiff had fourteen days to object. No objection was made, and the 

Court will not entertain an untimely objection. Moreover, Plaintiff vigorously litigated 

their case, causing Defendant to incur litigation costs. Although the Court has not 

required Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s attorneys’ fees, it will not relieve him from the 

obligation to pay costs Defendant incurred solely as a result of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Case 2:08-cv-02180-DGC Document 159 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

Because the Court will not reverse its Judgment on Taxation, the Court will 

similarly not grant Plaintiff’s motion to stay the Superior Court’s continuing lien order, 

which is based on the taxation judgment. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment 

(Doc. 146) is denied. 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:08-cv-02180-DGC Document 159 Filed 10/05/11 Page 3 of 3