Opinion ID: 239552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Costs Bond and Attorneys Fees.

Text: 25 Appellant contends that the requirement of the rules of the District Court of Guam that non-residents file a cost bond is 'without basis in law and discriminatory.' While no federal statute authorizes security for costs, the District Courts may make their own rules not inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. F.R.C.P. 83. The Guam rule to assure collection of costs from non-residents who may be in the continental United States at the time of judgment is not inconsistent with the Federal Rules and seems a perfectly reasonable provision. 5 26 Appellant further contends that counsel fees are not allowable as costs under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Appellee contends that they may be awarded as a matter of discretion on the part of the District Court. Assuming appellee's position to be correct, an award of such fees would not be warranted since there was no evidentiary support for the conclusion that appellant intended to harass appellee. 27 The judgment is affirmed except for any award of attorneys' fees as costs.