The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alan B. Johnson United States District Judge Sitting BY Designation
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REVIEW CLERK'S AWARD OF BILL OF COSTS AND DENYING MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
Matters concerning defendant's claims for expenses and costs in the above captioned matter came before the Court for consideration, pursuant to the defendant's Motion for Review of Clerk's Award of Bill of Costs. The defendant has expressed concerns about the clerk's taxation of costs and has requested that additional costs be awarded and taxed in this case. The Court has reviewed costs awarded and has determined that the Clerk's taxation of costs is correct and is consistent with applicable law, 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), and that defendant is not entitled to the costs and expenses claimed.
Additionally, in July of 2004, a stipulated motion for status conference was filed by the parties, prior to this Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and prior to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' issuance of its Mandate on March 15, 2005, dismissing the appeal filed by Julie Simmons, pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 42(b) provides:
(b) Dismissal in the Court of Appeals. The circuit clerk may dismiss a docketed appeal if the parties file a signed dismissal agreement specifying how costs are to be paid and pay any fees that are due. But no mandate or other process may issue without a court order. An appeal may be dismissed on the appellant's motion on terms agreed to by the parties or fixed by the court.
The Court finds that the parties' dismissal of the appeal renders all pending motions moot. In accordance with the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to for Review of Clerk's Award of Bill of Costs shall be, and is, DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the parties' joint request for a status conference shall be, and is, DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that any other remaining pending motions shall be, and hereby are, DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...