Admiral Insurance Company v. Kabul, Inc.

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Admiral Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00177-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and Denying as 6 v. Moot Defendant’s Objection

7 Kabul, Inc., [ECF Nos. 190, 193] 8 Defendant

9 10 This action arises out of a separate wrongful death action. Here, Admiral Insurance 11 Company commenced a declaratory insurance action against Kabul, Inc.1 After I granted 12 summary judgment in favor of Admiral on its claims against Kabul, it filed its bill of costs. Bill, 13 ECF No. 190. Kabul objects to Admiral’s bill, arguing that Admiral’s position as the prevailing 14 party is unsupported by the record. Obj., ECF No. 193. Kabul further argues that the costs 15 sought are not taxable, necessary, or adequately supported. Id. at 3. However, the day after filing 16 its objection, Kabul filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. Notice, ECF No. 195. The Ninth 17 Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a decision on Kabul’s appeal. I find that, given the 18 pending appeal, it is inefficient to rule on Admiral’s bill of costs until the pending appeal is 19 disposed. Admiral’s bill of costs is denied without prejudice; however, it may refile the bill, if 20 appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on Kabul’s appeal. 21 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), a prevailing party is entitled to costs 22 other than attorney’s fees “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides 23 otherwise.” Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing 24 party, “but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry

25 1 Defendants Tommy Lynch, April Black, and Nationwide Brokerago Solutions were subsequently dismissed. The status of the lawsuit against Darryl Peter Alexander, Jr. and RSG Specialty LLC is 26 unclear. The court is also unaware of any activity on the third party, cross- and counter-claims asserted in this action. 1|| Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000)). However, the district court has discretion to defer ruling on a 3]| taxation of costs while an appeal on the merits is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory 4] committee notes to 1993 amendment (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court 5]| may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion 6|| without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal 7|| has been resolved.”); see also Wealthy, Inc. v. Cornelia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243250, *3 (D. Nev. 8|| Aug. 16, 2024); Lasic v. Moreno, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007). “The reasoning of the Advisory Committee’s note is applicable to ruling on a bill of costs.” Lasic, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1. The Ninth Circuit now has an opportunity to determine whether Admiral should indeed 12] prevail and therefore recover its costs. Because a ruling from the Ninth Circuit could moot the 13]| bill of costs, I find that deferring ruling until after the appeal is resolved promotes judicial 14|| economy. Therefore, Admiral Insurance Company’s bill of costs [ECF No. 190] is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, Kabul’s objection [ECF No. 193] is denied as moot. Admiral 16]| may refile the bill, if appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on Kabul’s 17|| appeal. / } 18 Dated: March 4, 2026 LZ

30 Crist ing/D. Silv U ited States District Judge 21 □ □ 22 23 24 25 26