Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Stephanie Gast KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 5055 Wilshire Blvd., suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90036 (323) 988-2400 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LANE SENNETT, Plaintiff, vs. FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA INC., AND WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 04-161-PHX-ROS PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S BILL OF COSTS

Plaintiff hereby objects to Defendant Fleetwood's Bill of Costs. Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P 54 and LRCiv 54.1, "[a] party entitled to costs shall, within ten (10) days after the entry of final judgment, unless time is extended under Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, file with the Clerk of Court and serve upon all parties, a bill of costs on a

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

form provided by the Clerk." The Court's Order granting Fleetwood summary judgment is dated June 2, 2006. Fleetwood's Bill of Costs is dated June 15, 2006. Therefore, Fleetwood's Bill of Costs is not timely and should therefore be denied. On June 28th, 2006, during a telephonic status conference, the Honorable Judge Roslyn O. Silver stated that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment was not timely if not filed within ten (10) days of the Order granting Fleetwood Summary Judgment. Therefore, if Plaintiff's

1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 180

Filed 06/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is not timely, Defendant Fleetwood Bill of Costs is not timely as well. However, if Fleetwood's Bill of Costs are deemed timely, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment should likewise be deemed timely. However, if the Court determines that Fleetwood's Bill of Costs is timely, Plaintiff objects to the costs related to counsel's attendance at multiple depositions. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.1(e)(3) "[c]ounsel's fees, expenses in arranging for and attending and taking of a deposition are not taxable." Therefore, Plaintiff objects to all costs related to travel expenses incurred during out-of-state deposition participation. See Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Bill of Costs ¶ 3; See City Bank of Honolulu v. Rivera Davila, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1971, 438 F.2d 1367 (holding "[t]raveling expenses incurred in attending taking of deposition as attorney were not taxable as costs."); See Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1968, 404 F.2d 1163 (holding "[a]ttorney's travel expenses for taking of depositions are not taxable."), See McIlveen v. Stone Container Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1990, 910 F.2d 1581 (holding "[s]uccessful litigant could be denied expenses associated with renting of conference

20 21 22 23

room for taking of deposition by telephone and having attorney travel to be present for deposition; deposition could have been conducted from deponent's home or office, and attorney's presence, while possibly helpful or supportive for deponent, was not actually

24 25 26 27 28

necessary.") For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Bill of Costs should be denied as untimely. In the alternative, Defendant's Bill of Costs should b reduced by $1,136.31.

2

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 180

Filed 06/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 27th day of June, 2006.

By: __s/Stephanie Gast__________ Stephanie Gast KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 West Monroe, 711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorney for Plaintiff(s)

ORIGINAL filed electronically with The United States District Court, District of Arizona. COPY of the foregoing hand delivered to: Hon. Roslyn O. Silver United States District Court, District of Arizona This 27th day of June, 2006. s/Cathy Bopp Cathy Bopp

3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 180

Filed 06/29/2006

Page 3 of 3