ORDER

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge.

Currently before the Court is a Motion for Payment of St. Tammany Parish Court Costs (the "Motion") filed by Malise Prieto, Clerk of Court in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana (the "Clerk").1 In the Motion, the Clerk requests that a fee of $5,655.31 be paid to the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court's Office from the funds deposited in the above-captioned matter for costs incurred by the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court's Office in relation to this matter. After considering the Motion, oppositions, record, and applicable law, the Court will deny the Motion.

I. Background

On April 8, 2005, Omni Pinnacle, LLC's ("Omni") predecessor in interest, Pinnacle Contracting, Inc., entered into a contract with the St. Tammany Parish (the "Parish") to provide debris removal services within the Parish.2 On September 22, 2005, David Graves ("Graves") entered into a contract with Omni to perform debris cleanup work related to Hurricane Katrina (the "Project") under Omni's contract with the Parish. In that contract, Graves expressly agreed that he was not "entitled to payment to the extent there is . . . claimed failure of [Graves] to make payments to [his] subcontractors, suppliers or laborers."3 Graves, in turn, entered into contracts with a number of subcontractors ("Graves's Subcontractors") to perform debris removal services under that contract.4

After completion of the Project, a number of lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts over payments due under the various contracts. On September 14, 2009, Graves settled his claims against the Parish. Under that settlement, Graves was to receive funds totaling $1.1 million ("Settlement Funds") in satisfaction of his claims against the Parish and/or Omni. While the Parish secured the Settlement Funds from FEMA, Graves entered into settlement agreements with many of his subcontractors. In the settlement agreements, Graves and his subcontractors agreed that the subcontractors would be paid from the Settlement Funds upon Graves's receipt of the Settlement Funds from the Parish.5

On February 8, 2011, the IRS issued a notice of levy to Omni for any property held by it belonging to Graves. On April 18, 2011, the Parish filed a Petition for Concursus in the 22nd Judicial District Court, St. Tammany Parish.6 The Parish filed the Petition for Concursus to have the court determine the entitlement of various potential claimants to the Settlement Funds, including Graves, Graves's Subcontractors, and the United States. In connection with the Petition for Concursus, the Parish deposited the Settlement Funds into the Registry of the Court.

On June 22, 2011, the United States removed this action to the Eastern District of Louisiana where it initially was assigned to Section "C," Judge Berrigan.7 It was later transferred to Section "B," Judge Lemelle, because it was determined that this case related to an action previously heard by Judge Lemelle.8 Subsequently, this case was transferred to this Section, Section "G," on October 7, 2011.9

On April 18, 2012, after the parties agreed to settlement of the funds, this Court granted a Motion to Transfer Money Held in State Court, wherein the Court ordered the Clerk to tender to the Financial Unit for the Clerk of Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, the amount of $1,100,000 deposited in the matter of Parish of St. Tammany v. Omni Pinnacle, L.L.C. and Shaw Environmental, Inc., et al., No. 2007-10755, Div. "I", plus all interest accrued on said funds since the date of deposit.10 Subsequently, the Clerk transferred these funds to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On May 3, 2012, the Court granted the parties' Motion for Distribution of Funds.11 Before the Financial Clerk for the Eastern District of Louisiana could distribute the funds, an individual from the Clerk of Court's Office for the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany contacted the Financial Clerk for the Eastern District of Louisiana to inform her that the Clerk of Court's Office for the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany had failed to withhold court costs before transferring the funds to the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Clerk then contacted this Court with the same message. On May 23, 2012, this Court held a status conference with the parties and the Clerk.12 Hearing no objection from the parties, the Court ordered the Clerk to submit a briefing within five days of the status conference providing the Court with a legal basis for its claim to the funds, to address whether it could waive the fee it alleges it is owed, and stating whether it did, in fact, waive such fee.13 The Court then allowed the parties three (3) days to respond, individually or collectively, to the Court's request.14

Subsequently, the Clerk filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Payment of St. Tammany Court Costs,15 which the Court allowed.16 In the Motion, the Clerk requests payment of $5,655.31 in court costs incurred in the matter from April 18, 2011 to date. The Court has received oppositions from the Parish,17 the United States,18 and many other defendants.19

II. Parties' Arguments

The Clerk goes on to state that it is her policy and procedure in concursus suits to pay all filing fees previously incurred in the proceedings from funds in the Registry of the Court upon the conclusion of the suit and receiving the order for withdrawal of funds from the Registry of the Court. The Clerk then states that, in this case, no funds were withdrawn as this Court's Order to transfer the funds to the Eastern District of Louisiana made no mention of assignment of costs. The Clerk further states that the case has not been dismissed or closed in state court and cannot be dismissed until all costs are paid.21

Finally, the Clerk states that it was proffered in the status conference held on May 23, 2012 that the majority of the outstanding costs are those of the Parish. The Clerk then argues that under Louisiana law, when a governmental entity is the plaintiff who settles a case prior to a judgment being rendered, it remains the governmental entity's duty to assist in the collection of court costs.22

In response, the Parish23 first argues that it is exempt from payment of court costs.24 The Parish then states that it did, in fact, assist the Clerk in collection of court costs. The Parish states that, in the Petition for Concursus, the Parish requested that reasonably attorneys' fees and costs be paid out of the funds deposited into the Registry of the Court.25 The Parish further notes that the state court issued an order on April 18, 2011 which included the following directives regarding court costs:

Thus, the Parish argues that it obtained an order from the state court at the inception of this matter directing the Clerk to deduct costs as they accrued from the money deposited into the registry of the court and that the Clerk simply failed to comply with this order. Further, the Parish contends that it did not receive an invoice from the Clerk during these proceedings, which would have given the Parish notice that the Clerk had not been deducting costs as they accrued, in accordance with the state court's order.

In its opposition to the Clerk's claim, the United States argues that the Clerk is not entitled to court costs because, following this Court's order of distribution, the remaining funds are attached by a federal tax lien and that such costs may not be paid in derogation of a federal tax lien.27 Further, the United States argues that the Clerk's reliance on Louisiana state law to support the proposition that the case is still an open suit in the 22nd Judicial District Court of St. Tammany Parish is misguided. The United States argues that once this case was removed to federal court, the state court was deprived of all jurisdiction over the case barring remand.28 The United States contends, although the case may remain administratively open in the 22nd Judicial Court of St. Tammany Parish, there can be no open case before that court as it does not have jurisdiction, and therefore, the statutes relied upon by the Clerk do not require the payment of costs.

III. Analysis

First, the Court notes that the Parish is correct in its argument that it is exempt from payment of the court costs at issue. La. R.S. 13:4521(A)(1) states:

Thus, the Parish's position is supported by law.

Additionally, while the Clerk states that the case is currently listed as an open case in the 22nd Judicial Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, the state court, barring remand, no longer has jurisdiction over this matter as a result of it receiving notice of the removal.29 Because the state court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter, the Clerk's arguments in favor of payment on the basis that it cannot close the case prior to receiving costs fail.

The Court also finds that the Clerk has waived any entitlement to court costs in this matter. This Court specifically directed the Clerk to address whether it could waive the fee it alleges it is owed and whether it did, in fact, waive such fees.30 In its briefing, the Clerk has failed to address the issue of waiver. However, it is clear from the Parish's briefing that the Clerk did in fact waive any entitlement to fees that it may have had in this matter. As the Parish noted, the state court's April 18, 2011 order specifically stated:

The Clerk was explicitly ordered to deduct any costs from the money deposited into the Registry of the Court, and the Clerk failed to adhere to this order. Thus, this Court finds that the Clerk waived any entitlement to fees that it may have had in this matter. Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk's Motion for Payment of St. Tammany Parish Court Costs is DENIED.