Opinion ID: 2518474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The district court's award of costs

Text: Village also contends that the district court erred in awarding U.S. Labs costs because U.S. Labs failed to file a verified memorandum of costs. Instead, U.S. Labs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which Village argues is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of NRS 18.110(1). We agree. A district court's decision regarding an award of costs will not be overturned absent a finding that the district court abused its discretion. [34] NRS 18.020(3) states that costs must be allowed to the prevailing party against any adverse party against whom judgment is rendered in an action for the recovery of money or damages, where the plaintiff seeks to recover more than $2,500. Under NRS 18.110(1), a prevailing party must submit: a memorandum of the items of his costs in the action or proceeding, which memorandum must be verified by the oath of the party, or his attorney or agent, or by the clerk of his attorney, stating that to the best of his knowledge and belief the items are correct, and that the costs have been necessarily incurred in the action or proceeding. In addition, NRS 18.110(1) dictates that this verified memorandum must be filed within five days after the entry of judgment unless the court grants extra time. This court has determined, however, that the five-day period is not jurisdictional and the district court has discretion to reach the merits of an untimely motion for costs and expert witness fees. [35] Costs must be interpreted to mean actual costs that are also reasonable, rather than a reasonable estimate or calculation of such costs based upon administrative convenience. [36] U.S. Labs contends that because the motion was actually filed early, in between the time when the district court granted summary judgment and when it entered the judgment, it meets the requirements of NRS 18.110. Furthermore, U.S. Labs contends that the costs requested in the instant case do not require additional documentation to justify their reasonableness. U.S. Labs does not deny that it did not provide documentation as to the requested costs, nor does U.S. Labs deny that it failed to verify the motion. Instead, U.S. Labs contends that because its counsel signed the motion under NRCP 11, which certified that the pleading was well grounded in fact, verification was not required, and in any event, there are no cases overturning an award for failure to provide verification. We disagree. In Gibellini v. Klindt, [37] this court addressed a situation, similar to the one in the instant case, where the district court awarded costs for photocopying, telephoning, and postage expenses. In that case, the prevailing party based its estimate of costs on the law firm's customary practice of charging four percent of the client's total billable charges for such expenses. [38] The court determined that the district court abused its discretion because there was no indication that the costs involved were actually incurred by the prevailing party. [39] Likewise, in Bobby Berosini, Ltd. v. PETA, this court determined that the district court abused its discretion because it granted an award of costs based upon the prevailing party's submission of itemized materials that did not show how the costs were necessary to and incurred in the present action. [40] This case is factually analogous to the aforementioned cases. Here, U.S. Labs contends that submission of an itemization is sufficient because the costs claimed here do not require additional documentation to justify their reasonableness. U.S. Labs argues further that [t]hose moving for costs should not be required to provide justifying documentation for each copy made or each call placed to substantiate the reason for the copy or call when the overall amount is obviously reasonable. This argument is unpersuasive because such documentation is precisely what is required under Nevada law to ensure that the costs awarded are only those costs actually incurred. Once such documentation is provided, it is then up to the district court to determine if the amount spent is reasonable. Accordingly, the district court improperly awarded costs.