Case Name: Rocco J. LAFARO, M.D., Arlen G. Fleisher, M.D., Cardiac Surgery Group, P.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CARDIOTHORACIC GROUP, PLLC, Steven L. Lansman, M.D., David Spielvogel, M.D., Westchestre County Health Care Corporation, Westchestre Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-07
Citations: 576 F.3d 128
Docket Number: Docket No. 08-4621-cv
Parties: Rocco J. LAFARO, M.D., Arlen G. Fleisher, M.D., Cardiac Surgery Group, P.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CARDIOTHORACIC GROUP, PLLC, Steven L. Lansman, M.D., David Spielvogel, M.D., Westchestre County Health Care Corporation, Westchestre Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CALABRESI and WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and DRONEY, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 576
Pages: 128–128

Head Matter:
Rocco J. LAFARO, M.D., Arlen G. Fleisher, M.D., Cardiac Surgery Group, P.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CARDIOTHORACIC GROUP, PLLC, Steven L. Lansman, M.D., David Spielvogel, M.D., Westchestre County Health Care Corporation, Westchestre Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 08-4621-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued: March 16, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 7, 2009.
Richard G. Menaker, Menaker & Herrmann, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jordy Rabinowitz, Senior Associate General Counsel, Westchester County Health Care Corporation, Office of Legal Affairs, Valhalla, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CALABRESI and WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and DRONEY, District Judge.
The Honorable Christopher F. Droney, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In the appeal underlying this application for costs, we vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Group, No. 08-4621-CV, 2009 WL 1873649, 2009 U.S.App. LEXIS 14283 (2d Cir. July 1, 2009). Plaintiffs-appellants, who sought the remand, subsequently filed their itemized bill of costs, to which defendants-appellees object on the ground that, in the event of vacatur and remand, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(4) provides for costs only as ordered by the Court.
We have previously allowed the party seeking and obtaining vacatur and remand to obtain costs by filing a bill of costs where not previously ordered by the court. Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 867, 881-82 (2d Cir.1998). However, in Gierlinger, the party against whom costs were asserted did not timely file an objection. See id. That is not the situation here.
Where "a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated," Fed. R.App. P. 39(a)(4), costs must be ordered before a party filing a bill of costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(d) is entitled to receive them. We therefore construe plaintiffs-appellants' bill of costs as an appropriate application for costs and GRANT the motion.