Cooley v. Marshal

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 FREDERICK MARC COOLEY, Case No. 2:09-cv-00559-MMD-GWF 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] SHARON MEADS, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Frederick Marc Cooley’s motion for costs and post13 judgment interest (“Motion”) (ECF No. 285).1 The Court finds that Cooley is not entitled to 14 the costs he requests and that he should be awarded a much smaller award of post15 judgment interest than he seeks. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion in part and 16 deny it in part. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 The Clerk entered judgment in favor of Cooley and against Defendant Sharon 19 Meads for damages in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to a jury verdict. (ECF No. 228.) 20 On June 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s denial of Meads’ 21 motion for judgment as a matter of law. (ECF No. 240.) The appellate court also concluded 22 that this Court erred in not providing a punitive damages instruction and remanded for a 23 new trial solely on that issue. (Id. at 4.) That trial was held on January 8–10, 2019. (See, 24 e.g., ECF Nos. 270, 273, 274.) The jury found for Cooley and awarded him $2,200.00 in 25 punitive damages. (ECF No. 273.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 1In addition to the Motion, the Court has considered Meads’ response (ECF No. 286). Cooley did not reply. 2 Cooley seeks an award of costs in the amount of $4,380.58 for his travel expenses 3 related to attending both trials. (ECF No. 285 at 3.) Cooley breaks down his travel 4 expenses into his total round trip miles, between Vallejo, California—where he resides— 5 and Las, Vegas, Nevada, as well as $400 for gas and $450 for lodging. (Id. at 6–10.) He 6 specifically calculates his mileage based on the fees allowed for trial witnesses. (Id. at 3, 7 19.) Meads challenges Cooley’s request, arguing that Cooley cannot recover such costs. 8 (ECF No. 286 at 2–3.) The Court agrees with Meads. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (not 9 including recovery of mileage and travel expenses by a party as taxable costs); Delehant 10 v. United States, No. 3:10-CV-178-AC, 2012 WL 6455808 , at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2012) 11 (citations omitted) (“Although Delehant did testify as a fact witness at trial, the prevailing 12 view in the Ninth Circuit is witness fees are not allowed to parties.”); Gillam v. A. Shyman, 13 Inc., 31 F.R.D. 271, 273 (D. AK. 1962) (“Witness fees in the federal court are not allowed 14 to parties to the action.”). Accordingly, the Court denies Cooley’s request for cost based 15 on his travel expenses. 16 While the Court finds that Cooley is entitled to post-judgment interest, he is not 17 entitled to the large sum he requests based on the applicable interest calculation. In a civil 18 case brought in federal court, post-judgment interest is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 . 19 Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 290 (9th Cir. 1995); [20] 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a). Such interest is “calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, 21 at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . ..” 28 22 U.S.C. § 1961 (a). Cooley seeks post-judgment interest of $2,255.00 improperly based on 23 state law and as of November 19, 2014, when the jury returned verdict in his favor. (ECF 24 No. 285 at 3–4.) Meads argues that under § 1961 Cooley is entitled to $105.40. (ECF No. 25 286 at 3, 5 (affidavit including the post-interest calculation).) This is the amount owed from 26 the date the Clerk entered the relevant damage award, August 3, 2015 (ECF No. 228), 27 through when Meads issued the $10,000 check for damages, October 10, 2018 (ECF No. 28 /// 1 || 285 at 15). (ECF No. 286 at 3, 5.) The Court agrees with Meads and will therefore enter 2 || post-judgment interest for Cooley in the amount of $105.40. 3 || IV. CONCLUSION 4 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 5 || not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 6 || that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 7 || the Court. 8 It is therefore ordered that Cooley’s motion for costs and post-judgment interest 9 || (ECF No. 285) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the requested costs 10 || but grants Cooley’s request for post-judgment interest in the amount of $105.40. The Clerk 11 || is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order. 12 DATED THIS 4" day of November 2019. 14 KMRANDA MBO 1s CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE