Desoto v. Dot Foods, Inc. et al

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
----oo0oo----
MICHAEL D. DESOTO, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOT FOODS, INC., an Illinois
corporation; SERGIO MORALES, an
individual; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive,
Defendants.
No. 2:24-cv-1140 WBS CSK
ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS
----oo0oo----
The court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants on December 30, 2025. (Docket No. 35.) Judgment for
defendants was entered the same day. (Docket No. 36.)
Defendants subsequently submitted a bill of costs, accompanied by
a supporting memorandum, proof of service, and documented
itemization. (Docket No. 38.) Plaintiff did not respond.
Defendants claim itemized costs of (1) $877.35 for
Case 2:24-cv-01140-WBS-CSK Document 43 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 2

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
2
clerk fees; (2) $3,983.26 for fees for service of summons and
subpoena; (3) $3,606.80 for transcript fees; (4) $120.00 for
witness fees; and (5) $487.11 for copying fees. (Docket No. 38
at 1.) Defendants’ total requested costs are $9,074.52
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) governs the
taxation of costs and provides that “costs -- other than
attorney’s fees -- should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “The general costs statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920, defines the term ‘costs,’” and includes fees for: the
clerk and marshal, transcripts, printing, copying, docketing, and
witnesses. Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne Sys.
Inc., 741 F.3d 955, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1920(1)-(6)) (“The general costs statute [which] defines the term
‘costs’ as used in Rule 54(d).”). “Rule 54(d) creates a
presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and
it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the
costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178
F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ memorandum
in support of their bill of costs and the time to do so has
passed. After reviewing defendants’ bill of costs and in light
of the fact that plaintiff has not objected, defendants’ claimed
costs of $9,074.52 will be taxed to plaintiff. See L.R. 292(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
Case 2:24-cv-01140-WBS-CSK Document 43 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 2