N.R. v. Del Mar Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the Clerk's denial of Plaintiff's Bill of Costs as untimely and Plaintiff's subsequent affidavit. The court affirmed the Clerk's denial, finding the Bill of Costs was filed well beyond the 14-day deadline and the motion to retax was procedurally deficient and untimely.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Affirming the Clerk's denial of Plaintiff's Bill of Costs“Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court finds no error in the Clerk’s ruling and affirms its denial of Plaintiffs Bill of Costs, in its entirety, as untimely.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Local Civil Rule 54.1(a), which requires a bill of costs to be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. The judgment was entered on December 8, 2023, and the bill was filed on January 16, 2024, which is 39 days later. The court correctly noted that Rule 59/60 motions do not extend this deadline and that no order extending the deadline was issued. The reliance on Grove v. Wells Fargo supports the proposition that failure to comply with local rules regarding taxable costs warrants denial. |
Declining to construe Plaintiff's Affidavit as a motion to retax costs“To begin, the Court declines to construe Plaintiff’s Affidavit as a motion to retax costs.” | agree with court The court noted that even if construed as a motion to retax, it was untimely (filed on the 8th day instead of within 7) and failed to specify the ruling excepted to as required by L. Civ. R. 54.1(h)(2). The court's refusal to construe the affidavit as a motion is a procedural determination supported by the local rules cited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable local rules, applies them to the specific dates in the record (Judgment Dec 8, 2023; Bill of Costs Jan 16, 2024), and correctly notes the lack of an extension order. It also properly addresses the procedural deficiencies of the subsequent affidavit. The citation to Grove v. Wells Fargo is appropriate for the proposition that strict compliance with local cost rules is required.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 N.R., Case No.: 21-cv-01759-AJB-KSC Plaintiff, 12 ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS 14 DEL MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT, Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 18, 2024, the Clerk of Court denied N.R.’s (“Plaintiff”) Bill of Costs as 19 untimely. (Doc. No. 121.) On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an “Affidavit in Support of 20 Bill of Costs.” (Doc. No. 124.)1 21 To begin, the Court declines to construe Plaintiff’s Affidavit as a motion to retax 22 costs. And even if the Court interpreted it as such, it is untimely filed. As noted to Plaintiff 23 in the Clerk’s Order denying costs, her deadline to file a motion to retax costs was within 24 seven days of that Order. (Doc. No. 121 at 2.) See also L. Civ. R. 54.1(h)(1). She did not 25 file until the eighth day and provided no good cause to excuse her lack of diligence. Not 26 1 Plaintiff’s filing at Doc. No. 123 appears identical except it omits a PACER invoice included in Doc. 27 1 || only does the filing fail to comply with the deadline, but it also fails “to specify the ruling 2 || of the Clerk excepted to.” L. Civ. R. 54.1(h)(2). Nowhere in the filing does Plaintiff engage 3 || with, or even mention, the Clerk’s ruling denying her request for costs as untimely. 4 Next, even if the Court reviewed the Clerk’s Order denying Plaintiffs Bill of Costs 5 timely, the Court would affirm the decision. Local Civil Rule 54.1 allows a prevailing 6 || party entitled to costs to file a bill of costs within fourteen days after entry of judgment. L. 7 || Civ. R. 54.1(a). Moreover, “the filing of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60 does not 8 extend the time to file the bill of costs.” Jd. 9 Here, an entry of judgment was entered on December 8, 2023. (Doc. No. 100.) 10 || Plaintiff did not file a Bill of Costs until January 16, 2024, well beyond the fourteen-day 11 || deadline. (Doc. No. 118.) There was no Court order extending the deadline. (Doc. No. 106 12 || at 2 (denying Plaintiff's request to extend deadlines to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and 13 costs).) Plaintiff's earlier-filed Rule 59 and 60 motions also do not extend the deadline. See 14 || L. Civ. R. 54.1(a); see also Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. California, Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 15 Cir. 2010) (affirming the district court’s denial of costs where the movant failed to 16 ||comply with the local rules governing motions for taxable costs). 17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court finds no error in the Clerk’s 18 ruling and affirms its denial of Plaintiffs Bill of Costs, in its entirety, as untimely. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 29, 2024 | ZS rz Le 21 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28