Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02071-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philippe Brunswick
Counter-defendant
Susannah Maas
Counter-defendant
Francois Marland
Counter-claimant
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN &

STEINER LLP, fka THELEN REID &

PRIEST LLP,

Plaintiff and

Counterdefendant,

v

FRANÇOIS MARLAND,

Defendant and

Counterclaimant. /

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN &

STEINER LLP, fka THELEN REID &

PRIEST LLP,

CounterCounterclaimant,

v

FRANÇOIS MARLAND, SUSANNAH MAAS &

PHILIPPE BRUNSWICK

CounterCounterdefendants. /

No C 06-2071 VRW

ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 333 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 granted summary judgment for law firm

plaintiff, counterdefendant and counter-counterclaimant Thelen Reid

Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP (“Thelen”) on August 1, 2007. Doc

#320. Thelen filed a timely bill of costs seeking reimbursement of

$64,070.02 from defendant, counter-claimant and countercounterdefendant Francois Marland (“Marland”). Doc #322. Marland

has not filed an objection to Thelen’s bill of costs. The time for

objecting has passed. Civ LR 54-2(a).

Counter-counterdefendant Philippe Brunswick (“Brunswick”)

filed a timely bill of costs seeking reimbursement of $898.80 in

transcript costs from Thelen. Doc #328. Thelen filed a timely

objection. Doc #332. Thelen argues that Brunswick is not entitled

to costs because he is not a “prevailing party” as required by FRCP

54. The court agrees. “A party in whose favor judgment is

rendered is generally the prevailing party for purposes of Rule

54(d).” d'Hedouville v Pioneer Hotel Co, 552 F2d 886, 896 (9th Cir

1977). Here, judgment was entered in favor of Thelen on August 3,

2007. Doc #321. 

Accordingly, Brunswick’s request for costs is DENIED. 

The clerk is DIRECTED to tax Thelen’s bill of costs in the amount

of $64,070.02. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02071-VRW Document 333 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2