Case Name: AIR BOB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE ENGINE SERVICES CORPORATE AVIATION, INC., doing business as Garrett Aviation Services, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 07-20006
Parties: AIR BOB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE ENGINE SERVICES CORPORATE AVIATION, INC., doing business as Garrett Aviation Services, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
AIR BOB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE ENGINE SERVICES CORPORATE AVIATION, INC., doing business as Garrett Aviation Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-20006.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 10, 2008.
Bobbie G. Bayless, Bayless & Stokes, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ray Allen Ashcraft, Jr., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Houston, TX, Mark A. Nadeau, Laura Michelle Kam, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for DefendantAppellee.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ail- Bob, Inc., sued GE Engine Services Corporate Aviation, Inc., doing business as Garret Aviation Services, alleging faulty repair of the plaintiffs aircraft. In the bench trial, the district court granted a defense motion for what the parties refer to as a "directed verdict," concluding "that Ah- Bob has failed to present any evidence of a duty owed by Garrett that it breached." That order is correct, essentially for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order entered November 6, 2006.
After entry of judgment, the district court awarded costs to defendant as the prevailing party. Plaintiff appeals the award to the extent it includes the cost of videotaped depositions. Defendant properly acknowledged in oral argument that the law in this circuit is that such costs are not taxable. See, e.g., Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135 F.3d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir.1998). Defendant challenges that caselaw as erroneous, but we have no authority to overrule previous panel decisions. The award in this case is in error.
The judgment granting a directed verdict is AFFIRMED. The order awarding-costs is VACATED and REMANDED for recalculation in accordance with this opinion.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.