Lacy L. Thomas, et al. v. Clark County, Nevada

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Lacy L. Thomas, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01615-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiffs Order Denying Without Prejudice Defendant’s Bill of Costs 6 v.

7 Clark County, Nevada, [ECF Nos. 106, 107]

8 Defendant

9 10 Lacy L. Thomas sued the Clark County District Attorney’s Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on an alleged unreasonable 12 seizure and violations of due process.1 After I granted summary judgment in favor of Clark 13 County on all claims, it filed a bill of costs seeking a total of $10,005.50 in deposition related 14 costs incurred in this litigation. Bill, ECF No. 106. Thomas objects, arguing that that he should 15 not bear the burden of paying the defendant’s costs in this action. Obj., ECF No. 107. Thomas 16 then filed a notice of appeal from this court’s April 22, 2025 order entering judgment in favor of 17 Clark County. Notice, ECF No. 108. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a 18 decision on Thomas’s appeal. I find that, given the pending appeal, and in the interest of judicial 19 economy, it is inefficient to rule on the defendant’s bill of costs until the pending appeal is 20 disposed. Clark County’s bill of costs is denied without prejudice; however, it may refile the bill, 21 if appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on Thomas’s appeal. 22 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), a prevailing party is entitled to costs 23 other than attorney’s fees “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides 24 otherwise.” Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing 25 party, “but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry 26 1 The Estate of Lacy Thomas was later substituted in as a party upon Thomas’s unfortunate passing. Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ass’n. of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of 2] California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000)). However, the district court has discretion to defer 3} ruling on a taxation of costs while an appeal on the merits is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee notes to 1993 amendment (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, 5 the 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 7 appeal has been resolved.”); see also Wealthy, Inc. v. Cornelia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243250, *3 (D. 8 Nev. 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 Clark County should 12 indeed prevail and therefore recover its costs. Because a ruling from the Ninth Circuit could 13] moot Clark County’s bill of costs, I find that deferring ruling until after the appeal is resolved 14 promotes judicial economy. Therefore, Clark County’s bill of costs [ECF No. 106] is denied 15] without prejudice. Accordingly, Thomas's objection [ECF No. 107] is denied as moot. Clark 16 County may refile the bill, if appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on 17 Thomas’s appeal. / ) 18 Dated: December 9, 2025 LZ (

19 & 50 Crysting Sika U States District Judge 21 [ / / 22 23 24 25 26