GRADY v. GARCIA, 10-cv-00347-PAB-CBS. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120601g11
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 30, 2012
Latest Update: May 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion for award of Costs [Docket No. 107] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Rule 54 provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d)(1) creates a "presumption that the district court will award costs to the prevailing party."
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion for award of Costs [Docket No. 107] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Rule 54 provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d)(1) creates a "presumption that the district court will award costs to the prevailing party." ..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion for award of Costs [Docket No. 107] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Rule 54 provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d)(1) creates a "presumption that the district court will award costs to the prevailing party." Cantrell v. Int'l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 459 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Therefore, only where a district court can provide a "valid reason" for not awarding costs to a prevailing party will such a decision be upheld.1 Id. It is the non-prevailing party's burden to establish that a valid reason exists for a denial of costs. See Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004). In this case, plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants' motion. Therefore, plaintiff has not carried his burden and the Court is not aware of a valid reason not to award costs. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to receive their costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Costs Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 54(d)(1) [sic] [Docket No. 107] is GRANTED. Defendants may have their costs upon compliance with Local Rule 54.1.
FootNotes
1. According to the Tenth Circuit, some of the valid reasons for which a district court may deny costs to a prevailing party include: where a party was only partially successful; where prevailing parties were obstructive and acted in bad faith during the course of litigation; where the damages awarded were nominal or recovery is otherwise insignificant; where the costs are unreasonably high or unnecessary; or where the issues are close and difficult. Cantrell, 69 F.3d at 459.
Source: Leagle
