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----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

NOS. CIV. 2:04-1358 WBS GGH

 2:05-0559 WBS GGH

 2:05-1726 WBS GGH

 CONSOLIDATED 

ORDER RE: COSTS

----oo0oo----

After a fifteen-day bench trial, the court found in 

favor of all defendants on all claims and judgment was entered on 

April 6, 2012. (Docket Nos. 664, 665.) Plaintiffs appealed and 

the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s decision on May 15, 2015. 

(Docket No. 697.) Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, its 

judgment took effect on June 8, 2015. (Docket No. 698.) On June 

22, 2015, defendants filed a Bill of Costs limited to the costs 

incurred on appeal, which total $15,789.50. (Docket No. 700.)

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 703 Filed 09/01/15 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

Plaintiffs’ sole objection to defendants’ Bill of Costs 

is that it is untimely under Eastern District Local Rule 292 

because it was filed over three years after this court entered 

judgment. Local Rule 292’s deadline for filling a Bill of Costs 

“[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment” logically 

applies only when costs were incurred in the district court prior

to entry of judgment. Here, defendants seek only costs incurred 

in defending that judgment on appeal and defendants thus had 

fourteen days after the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate 

to seek those costs. See E.D. Local R. 292(b) (“Within fourteen 

(14) days after entry of judgment or order under which costs may 

be claimed, the prevailing party may serve on all other parties 

and file a bill of costs conforming to 28 U.S.C. § 1924.”) 

(emphasis added). Defendants never sought and do not now seek 

costs incurred to defend this case in the district court. 

Defendants therefore timely filed their Bill of Costs to recover

costs incurred on appeal. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 provides that 

costs are taxed against the appellant if the judgment is 

affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit mandate taxed costs against 

plaintiffs in the amount of $499.50. (Docket No. 698.) Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e) also provides that costs for 

the reporter’s transcript and the fee for filling the appeal may 

be taxed in the district court. In their Bill of Costs, 

defendants seek costs only for (1) the reporter’s transcripts; 

(2) the filing fee for the appeal; and (3) the costs taxed by the 

Ninth Circuit. After reviewing the bill, and in light of the 

fact that plaintiffs have objected only to the timeliness of 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 703 Filed 09/01/15 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

defendants’ request, the court finds the requested appeal costs 

are reasonable. Accordingly, costs of $15,789.50 are taxed 

against plaintiffs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2015

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 703 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3