United States District Court, D. Arizona
Allan K. Morgal, Plaintiff,
Edward Williams, Defendant.
K. JORGENSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Objection to Costs (Doc. 205) filed
by Allan Kenneth Morgal (“Morgal”). A response
has been filed (Doc. 208).
April 13, 2016, a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict was
entered in favor of Edward Williams (“Williams”)
and against Morgal. On April 25, 2016, counsel for Williams
submitted a Bill of Costs totaling $7, 196.94 and supporting
documentation (Doc. 201). An exhibit to the response
indicates that Morgal signed for mail from counsel's
office on April 29, 2016 (Doc. 208-1). On May 13, 2016, the
Clerk of Court entered a Judgment on Taxation of Costs in the
amount of $7, 196.94 (Doc. 204). The docket sheet does not
indicate that a copy of the Judgment on Taxation of Costs was
mailed to Morgal by the Clerk of Court.
20, 2016, Morgal filed an Objection to Costs. Morgal asserts
an improper service of the Bill of Costs (Doc. 201) was
attempted (Doc. 205) and that he did not receive a copy of
the Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 208). He also objects
to the costs of the transcripts of Marc Puliuchio, Ramond
Grewe, Cameron Lindsay and Eldon Vail as those persons were
not used at trial nor did they have any knowledge of the
incident. Morgal further asserts that he is indigent
(e.g., he is still paying his original filing fees).
responds that Morgal has not presented any information or
argument that rebuts the presumption that Morgal received the
Bill of Costs. Counsel for Williams mailed the Bill of Costs
to Morgal on April 25, 2016 (Doc. 208), Exs. A and B.
Further, Williams asserts his costs were reasonable and
of Bill of Costs
applicable rule states: “The clerk may tax costs on 14
days' notice. On motion served within the next 7 days,
the court may review the clerk's action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54.1(d)(1). Here, Morgal does not dispute that
Defendant sent the Bill of Costs to him. Rather, he only
asserts he did not receive a copy from the Clerk of Court.
However, the rule does not require that the notice be from
the Clerk. The Court finds Morgal received adequate notice of
the Bill of Costs.
although Morgal's Objection was not filed within seven
days, the Court finds it appropriate to consider Morgal's
of Costs - Reasonable and Necessary
U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the
district court to tax costs. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d),
costs incurred by the prevailing party may be assessed
against the losing party and may be taxed by the Clerk.
Lai v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 13-CV-05183-SI,
2015 WL 885035, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015).
“Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure], 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) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to
prevailing parties, and it is incumbent upon the losing party
to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.”
Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079
(9th Cir. 1999).
costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as follows:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained ...