Costs related to copies of documents used in the 3 deposition of Relators should be denied until the completeness of the 4 deposition transcript regarding the threats made by William Calhoun is 5 resolved. 6 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 7 WHEREFORE, the Court should deny EY’s Motion For Costs 8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1919. There is no district court or circuit authority 9 anywhere which holds that the disclosure of recruiter enrollment quotas is a 10 public disclosure within the context of the False Claims Act.

IMES’ flawed complaint and dilatory behavior in initiating several rounds of unnecessary and improper briefing supports an award of SEL’ s costs as “ just.” 28 U.S.C. § 1919. CONCLUSION For at least the reasons set forth above, SEL respectfully requests an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred thus far in this case.

See Opp’ n at 8-9 [DI 38]. Indeed, IMES did little more than merely call 28 U.S.C. § 1919 “ arcane.” Id.

’” 389 F.3d at 1056 (quoting Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Steel Co., 230 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir. 2000) (permitting fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 11406(a)(1))). The court identified statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 1919 and 1447(c) that specifically “permit awards of litigation expenses in suits that federal courts are not authorized to decide on the merits” and the “[u]se of this fee-shifting power has been uncontroversial.” Id.

6 EY seeks sanctions of approximately $542,000 in attorney’s fees against 7 Relators and their counsel. EY brings its motion in order to interfere with 8 Relators from pursuing their appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9 Ninth Circuit. 10 The essence of EY’s argument in its sanctions motion, which is 11 carried over into EY’s motion for costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, is that 12 Relators

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW Document 92 Filed 06/15/2008 Page 1 of 5 OBJECTION TO MARIE CLAUDE SIMON’S MOTION FOR COSTS -2- Case No. C-7-04755-JW BIRNBERG & ASSOCIATES 703 MARKET STREET SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94103 TEL (415) 398-1040 FAX (415) 398-2001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In her motion for costs, Simon fails to establish that the costs she incurred in bringing her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were “just costs in connection with the action,” as required by 28 USC §1919. Plaintiffs should not therefore be responsible for the costs that Simon seeks, as these costs were unnecessary to Simon’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and were unnecessary to her opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

III. CONCLUSION 12. For these reasons, Regional Management Corp. and Regional Finance Corporation of Texas ask the Court to grant their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and award cost under 28 U.S.C. § 1919. IV.

The Affidavit in Support of Ad Litem Fees, attached as Exhibit A, sets forth the ad litem’s fees in the amount of $2,536.50. Further, defendants are entitled to costs of court under 28 U.S.C. § 1919 (“Whenever any action or suit is dismissed in any district court . . . for want of jurisdiction, such court may order the payment of just costs.”).

Id. at 927 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1919; 1447(c)). 5 Prior to the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Steel Co., some other circuits concluded that dismissal on jurisdictional grounds precluded a statutory fee award.

Nevertheless, the district court relied on authority under ERISA to awardcosts to a successful defendant. Under the logic ofBranson, even thoughthe district court may have hadthe authority to impose sanctions under Rule 11 or award "just costs" under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, the court had no authority to apply the fee-shifting provision of ERISA.[fn 2 omitted.] The samerationale is applied in cases by state courts of appeal.