Case Name: WESTFORK, a Nevada Corporation; Calneva Cattle Company, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Right Away Foods Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-17
Citations: 13 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 00-15333; D.C. No. CV-97-01360-WBS/JFM
Parties: WESTFORK, a Nevada Corporation; Calneva Cattle Company, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Right Away Foods Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before SNEED, WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
WESTFORK, a Nevada Corporation; Calneva Cattle Company, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Right Away Foods Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
No. 00-15333.
D.C. No. CV-97-01360-WBS/JFM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2001 .
Decided July 17, 2001.
Discretionary Review Granted by Supreme Court Aug. 15, 2001.
Before SNEED, WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Westfork Corp. and Calneva Cattle Co. (collectively, 'Westfork") appeal the district court's order of costs requiring them to pay certain expenses incurred by defendants in Westfork's unsuccessful tort action. We affirm. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.
1. The district court was within its discretion to consider Right Away Foods Corp.'s bill of costs, notwithstanding the timing of Right Awajfs submission of supporting documentation. Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 20 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994).
2. We review the district court's award of costs for abuse of discretion. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th Cir.1990). The district court addressed Westfork's objections in detail, and provided a reasoned basis for rejecting them. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.