Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.

Opinion

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE No. 1:21-cv-00944-TLN-CSK COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants and Counter-Claimants Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company’s (“Defendants”) Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 98.) Defendants seek costs in the total amount of $6,369.25. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Amco Insurance Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed objections to the Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 99.) Specifically, Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ request for a mediator fee in the amount of $3,175, arguing mediator fees may not be taxed. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs also object to the $231.75 that Defendants request for an “Ace Attorney Service fee,” which Plaintiff argues lacks sufficient information and documentation showing it was a necessary expense. (Id.) Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 100.) /// Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit may recover its costs, other than attorney’s fees, “[u]nless a federal statute, [the civil rules], or a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “By its terms, the rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the [Court] discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican–Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). If the Court declines to award costs to the prevailing party, the Court must “specify reasons” for denying costs. Id. However, the Court need not “specify reasons for its decision to abide [by] the presumption and tax costs to the losing party.” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A prevailing party’s ability to recover costs under Rule 54(d)(1) is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and, in this District, by Local Rule 292. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (specifying taxable costs); L.R. 292(f) (same); see also Crane-McNab v. Cnty. of Merced, No. 1:08-cv-1218-WBS-SMS, 2011 WL 794284, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2011) (“Rule 54(d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which fees and expenses the Court may tax as costs. Local Rule 292(a) prescribes that “[c]osts shall be taxed in conformity with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920,” and Local Rule 292(f) provides a list of specific fees and expenses that are taxable as costs. L.R. 292(a), (f). Plaintiffs’ objections are unpersuasive. See Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 (“[T]he losing party must show why costs should not be awarded.”). As to Plaintiffs’ first objection to the requested mediator fees, Plaintiffs cite a single, out-of-circuit case to support their argument that mediator fees may not be taxed. (ECF No. 99 at 2 (citing Brisco-Wade v. Carnahan, 297 F.3d 781, 782 (8th Cir. 2002)).) Plaintiffs do not provide any analysis of Brisco-Wade, and the case is distinguishable from the instant case. In Brisco-Wade, the Eighth Circuit held a district court abused its discretion in taxing mediator’s fees because: (1) “the Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules do not permit prisoner civil rights cases to be referred for mediation”; and (2) the court “found no statutory authority (nor did the district court cite to any) permitting the taxation of mediation fees in [§] 1983 litigation.” 297 F.3d at 782. Not only is the instant case not a prison civil rights case, but Plaintiffs fail to discuss this Court’s Local Rules or cite any authority from this District. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ first objection. As to Plaintiffs’ second objection to the “Ace Attorney Service fee,” Plaintiffs again cite a single, out-of-circuit case to argue the claimed cost lacks sufficient documentation. (ECF No. 99 (citing English v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 248 F.3d 1002, 1013 (10th Cir. 2001)).) Plaintiffs again fail to provide meaningful analysis of their cited case and fail to cite authority from this District. Moreover, in response, Defendants provide supplemental documentation to support their request of these fees. (ECF No. 100.) Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ second objection. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Bill of Costs in the amount of $6,369.25. (ECF No. 98.) Date: April 17, 2025 7, IS TROY L. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE