Opinion
No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD.
November 21, 2007
ORDER
On January 30, 2007, this Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendant Moreno ("Defendant") as to Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution by Defendant in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Defendant, as the prevailing party in this litigation, has now filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $14,970.33. Plaintiff David Lasic, Jr. ("Plaintiff") has filed Objections to that request.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing party in a lawsuit may recover its costs "unless the court otherwise directs." As this language suggests, the ultimate decision on whether to award costs is a matter within the court's discretion. Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(a), costs are awardable in conformity with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and such other provisions of law as may be applicable. In addition, Local Rule 54-292(f)(11) allows the Court to tax other items it believes should be compensable "in the interest of justice." If the court declines to award costs as requested by the prevailing party it should specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court may defer its ruling on attorney's fees when an appeal on the merits is pending. See 1993 Advisory Committee notes to FRCP 54(d) ("if an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the [district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved."); Dumas v. New United Motor Mfg., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49098 (D. Cal. 2007). The reasoning of the Advisory Committee's note is applicable to a ruling on a bill of costs. Singleton v. Dep't of Corr. Educ., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17834 (D. Va. 2003) citing Langham-Hill Petroleum, Inc. v. Southern Fuels Co., 813 F.2d 1327, 1331 (4th Cir. 1987).
It is within the Court's discretion to proceed or defer the taxation of costs while an appeal on the merits is pending.Zimmerman v. Dickerson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84426 (D. Ind. 2006) citing Cooper v. Eagle River Memorial Hospital, Inc., 270 F.2d 456, 464 (7th Cir. 2001).
The Court finds that in the interests of judicial economy, ruling on the Defendant's Bill of Costs should be deferred until the pending appeal is disposed. It would be a inefficient use of judicial resources to rule on the Bill of Costs at this time, and then to later re-evaluate the issue after the appeal is completed.
Given the pendency of the appeal, Defendant's Bill of Costs is DENIED at this juncture, without prejudice to being renewed following disposition of this matter upon appeal.
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).
IT IS SO ORDERED.