Michael D. Geerts dba MD Geerts v. Security National Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02514
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. GEERTS DBA MD GEERTS, 12 No. 2:24-cv-02514-TLN-AC Plaintiff, 13

14 ORDER v. 15 SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE 16 COMPANY, 17 Defendant. 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Security National Insurance Company’s 20 (“Defendant”) Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff Michael D. Geerts (“Plaintiff”) filed 21 objections. (ECF No. 20.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s costs are GRANTED. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 This case arises from an insurance dispute. Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Defendant 3 in Placer County Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied 4 covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 1-1 at 13–22.) Defendant then removed the 5 action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, on September 10, 2025, the Court granted 6 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) 7 Plaintiff, however, elected not to amend his pleading and requested the Court enter a final 8 judgment. (ECF No. 16.) Based on Plaintiff’s request, the Court amended its Order granting 9 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be with prejudice, dismissed all claims, and 10 directed the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment in favor of Defendant. (ECF No. 17.) 11 On October 29, 2025, Defendant submitted the instant Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 19.) On 12 October 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 20.) 13 II. STANDARD OF LAW 14 Under Rule 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit shall recover its costs “unless . . . a 15 court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The rule creates a presumption that 16 costs will be taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to 17 award costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded. See Ass’n of Mexican- 18 Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). 19 A prevailing party’s ability to recover costs under Rule 54(d)(1) is limited by 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1920 and, in the Eastern District, by Local Rule 292. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; E.D. Cal. L.R. 21 292(f); see also Crane-McNab v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:08-cv-1218-WBS-SMS, 2011 WL 22 794284, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2011) (“Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are generally subject to 24 limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which fees and expenses a 25 court may tax as costs. Local Rule 292(a) prescribes that “[c]osts shall be taxed in conformity 26 with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920” and Local Rule 292(f) provides a list of specific fees 27 and expenses that are taxable as costs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(a), (f). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) provides 28 that courts may tax as costs “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any 1 | materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” If the court declines to 2 | award costs, it must specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 3 | (9th Cir. 2002). 4 Til. ANALYSIS 5 Defendant seeks $868.45 in costs, consisting of $405.00 for the Clerk of Court fees and 6 | $463.45 for state court filing fees. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff objects to the fees incurred in Placer 7 | County Superior Court, arguing that the fees could have been avoided. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) 8 | Plaintiff further argues the Court should refuse to award or should reduce costs based on equitable 9 | considerations, such as the fact that the matter involved complex legal issues or the fact that 10 | Plaintiff faces substantial exposure in the underlying personal injury case. (/d. at 1-2.) 11 Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court a reduction is warranted. As to Plaintiff's argument 12 || regarding the state court filing fees, as far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff appears to argue that 13 | Defendant gratuitously filed notice of removal in state court and incurred unnecessary filing fees. 14 | However, Defendant was required to notify state court to properly effect removal. See 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 1446(d) (‘[p]romptly after filing . . . notice of removal of a civil action[,] the defendant... 16 | shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal’) 17 | (emphasis added). Further, Defendant’s equitable showing is insufficient to overcome the 18 | baseline entitlement to costs. 19 Accordingly, Defendants’ Bill of Costs is GRANTED. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in 22 | the amount of $868.45. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Date: July 1, 2026 7, 25 TROY L. NUNLEY 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28