Filed: Jun. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. Judgment was entered in this case on May 16, 2014, following the Court's April 24, 2014 order granting Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Bill of Costs on June 6, 2014, seeking to tax $2,535.83 in costs. (Pl.'s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 73.) Local Rule 292 governs the taxation of costs, and provides in relevant part that a bill of costs may be filed and served on all other parties "[w]ithin fourteen (14) days
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. Judgment was entered in this case on May 16, 2014, following the Court's April 24, 2014 order granting Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Bill of Costs on June 6, 2014, seeking to tax $2,535.83 in costs. (Pl.'s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 73.) Local Rule 292 governs the taxation of costs, and provides in relevant part that a bill of costs may be filed and served on all other parties "[w]ithin fourteen (14) days a..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Judgment was entered in this case on May 16, 2014, following the Court's April 24, 2014 order granting Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Bill of Costs on June 6, 2014, seeking to tax $2,535.83 in costs. (Pl.'s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 73.)
Local Rule 292 governs the taxation of costs, and provides in relevant part that a bill of costs may be filed and served on all other parties "[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment." E.D. Cal. R. 292(b).
Since Plaintiff's Bill of Costs was filed more than fourteen days after judgment was entered, it is untimely and is denied. See Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F.2d 1360, 1375 n.43 (9th Cir. 1976) ("[T]he district court's refusal to tax costs . . . because the[] bill of costs was filed three days late was not an abuse of discretion."); see also Holmes v. Merck & Co., No. 2:04-CV-00608-BES(GWF), 2008 WL 4791042, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2008) ("Because the Court concludes that Defendant's Bill of Costs was untimely . . ., Defendant is not entitled to recover its costs in this action.").
