1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 LaTesha Watson, Case No. 2:20-cv-01761-CDS-CLB

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Without Prejudice Defendant’s Bill of Costs 6 v.

7 City of Henderson, et al., [ECF Nos. 259, 270]

8 Defendants

9 10 LaTesha Watson sued the City of Henderson, alleging discrimination against her on the 11 basis of her race and sex.1 After I granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Henderson 12 on all claims, it filed its bill of costs.2 Bill, ECF No. 261. Watson objects to the City’s bill, arguing 13 that the costs are unreasonable and are not accurately apportioned. Obj., ECF No. 270. However, 14 on April 16, 2025, Watson filed a notice of appeal from this court’s March 27, 2025 order 15 entering judgment in favor of the City and Abernathy. Notice, ECF No. 262. The Ninth Circuit 16 Court of Appeals has not issued a decision on Watson’s appeal. I find that, given the pending 17 appeal, it is inefficient to rule on the defendant’s bill of costs until the pending appeal is 18 disposed. The City’s bill of costs is denied without prejudice; however, it may refile the bill, if 19 appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on Watson’s appeal. 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), a prevailing party is entitled to costs 21 other than attorney’s fees “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides 22 otherwise.” Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing 23 party, “but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry 24 Farms, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California,

25 1 Defendants Bristol Ellington, Kenneth Kerby, Debra March, Richard Derrick, Richard McCann, Nick Vaskov, and Kristina Gilmore were subsequently removed or dismissed. 26 2 I also granted defendant Kevin Abernathy’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 257. Watson does not object to his bill of costs. ECF No. 259.

, 591 (9th Cir. 2000)). However, the district court has discretion to defer ruling on a 2|| taxation of costs while an appeal on the merits is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee notes to 1993 amendment (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court 4] may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion 5|| without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal 6|| has been resolved.”); see also Wealthy, Inc. v. Cornelia,

, *3 (D. Nev. 7|| Aug. 16, 2024); Lasic v. Moreno,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007). “The reasoning of the Advisory Committee’s note is applicable to ruling on a bill of costs.” Lasic,

, at *1. 10 The Ninth Circuit now has an opportunity to determine whether the City should indeed 11|| prevail and therefore recover its costs. Because a ruling from the Ninth Circuit could moot the City’s bill of costs, I find that deferring ruling until after the appeal is resolved promotes judicial 13||economy. Therefore, the City of Henderson’s bill of costs [ECF No. 261] is denied without 14|| prejudice. Accordingly, Watson’s objection [ECF No. 270] is denied as moot. The City may 15]| refile the bill, if appropriate, within fourteen days of the Ninth ircuit’s mandate on Watson’s 16]| appeal. /, f 17 Dated: December 10, 2025 LZ 19 Crisyina Silva U iveg/States District Judge 20 / ; 21 22 23 24 25 26