Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2020

Grewal v. Cuneo

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:13-cv-06836
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Grewal v. Cuneo, Judge Abrams accepted a timely costs filing and directed the Clerk to decide the requested $6,639.60 after considering Grewal’s objections.

Who this affects

Defendant’s request for $6,639.60 in costs will be considered by the Clerk of Court, along with Plaintiff’s objections. Either party may seek court review of the Clerk’s taxation within seven days of the decision.

What happened

In Grewal v. Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP, the defendant submitted a request for $6,639.60 in court costs after the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and issued its mandate.

The defendant’s first filing had been rejected because of filing errors, but the court said it was timely and allowed the defendant to refile it. Grewal objected to the request before and after the refiling.

Judge Ronnie Abrams accepted the filings together as a properly filed and timely bill of costs and directed the Clerk of Court to tax the costs while considering Grewal’s objections. Either party may ask the court to review the Clerk’s decision within seven days after taxation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Grewal v. Cuneo · No. 1:13-cv-06836
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 3, 2020

Background

The Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the district court’s judgment on February 25, 2020, and issued its mandate on April 8, 2020. On April 23, 2020, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs, seeking recovery of litigation costs. The filing was rejected that day because of errors, and the court later ordered Defendant to re-file it under the Local Rules and docket instructions by May 15, 2020.

Defendant re-filed its Notice of Application for Costs and supporting affidavit on May 11, 2020. The application sought $6,639.60 in total costs. Plaintiff filed objections before and after the refiling, and Defendant responded to those objections.

Ruling

The court accepted Defendant’s April 23 and May 11 submissions together as a properly filed and timely Bill of Costs. It relied on authority stating that the filing period runs from the date an appellate mandate is entered on the district court’s docket and that procedural filing errors need not prevent consideration of a costs request.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to tax the Bill of Costs based on the two filings and to consider Plaintiff’s objections. The order did not itself determine the amount of costs to be taxed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), either party may appeal the Clerk’s taxation of costs to the court within seven days after the Clerk’s decision. Defendant must serve Plaintiff with the order and file proof of service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.