Opinion ID: 754105
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Award of Costs to Defendant

Text: 34 Appellants contend that the district court erred in awarding costs to the City. They assert that under the Clean Water Act, the district court may only award costs to the prevailing defendant where the plaintiffs' claim was frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. 3 Appellants' contention is incorrect. 35 The City correctly argues that the district court was empowered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) 4 to make an award of taxable costs to the prevailing party. The cases on which appellants rely discuss only the question of attorney's fees which were not taxed as costs here. 5 This circuit has explicitly rejected the position proffered by appellants. See National Org. for Women v. Bank of Cal., NA, 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir.1982) (refusing to apply the Christiansburg standard to cost awards). Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party which may only be overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the prevailing party that would justify a denial of costs. National Info. Servs., 51 F.3d at 1471-72 (citations omitted). Appellants have alleged no such improprieties. Accordingly, the district court properly awarded costs to the City under Rule 54(d)(1).