Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 19, 2013

KALITTA AIR L.L.C., as assignee of American International Airways, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CENTRAL TEXAS AIRBORNE SYSTEM INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2013.

Mark L. McAlpine (argued) and Don W. Blevins, McAlpine PC, Auburn Hills, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Robert M. Yablon (argued), Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:96-cv-02494-CW.

Before: JEROME FARRIS, SUSAN H. BLACK [*], and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kalitta Air L.L.C. (Kalitta) appeals the district court's award of $622,036.38 in costs to Appellee Central

Page 956

Texas Airborne System Inc. (CTAS) following a jury's unanimous verdict in favor of CTAS. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, Kalitta [1] filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants, including CTAS, alleging various causes of action stemming from the modification of two of its aircraft from passenger to cargo planes and the Federal Aviation Administration's subsequent issuance of an Airworthiness Directive that effectively grounded those planes. The district court granted summary judgment to CTAS on Kalitta's negligence claim, and, after a jury trial in 2001 on Kalitta's negligent misrepresentation claim, the court entered judgment in favor of CTAS. In June 2002, the district court awarded CTAS $355,370 in costs.

In December 2002, this Court affirmed the district court's judgment in part and reversed and remanded in part. GATX/Airlog Co. v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines Inc., 52 Fed.Appx. 940, 942-43 (9th Cir.2002) (unpublished). The district court held a second trial that resulted in a mistrial. On interlocutory appeal from certain post-trial rulings, this Court again affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Kalitta Air, L.L.C. v. Cent. Tex. Airborne Sys. Inc., 315 Fed.Appx. 603, 607 (9th Cir.2008) (unpublished). Following a third trial in which Kalitta pursued only its claim of negligence, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of CTAS.

CTAS subsequently filed a bill of costs for $724,021.37. Kalitta objected and the clerk of court awarded CTAS $691,591.73 in costs. Kalitta then moved the district court to review the clerk's costs award, arguing in pertinent part that (1) pro hac vice admission fees were not taxable; (2) CTAS sought impermissible costs for the creation of visual aids by graphics consultant firms; (3) CTAS impermissibly sought costs for deposition video production and trial presentation support; (4) CTAS could not recover costs for transcript synchronization; [2] and (5) many of the deposition costs taxed in the district court's 2002 costs award were beyond the scope of Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 54-3.

In relevant part, the district court affirmed the clerk's award of $1,310 to CTAS for pro hac vice admission fees, noting this Circuit has not ruled on the issue and that some courts allow the costs to be taxed while others do not. Regarding Kalitta's arguments about costs for graphics consultants, the district court concluded fees for exemplification and copying were permitted only for the physical preparation of documents, not the intellectual effort involved in their creation. Accordingly, while it was not entirely clear how much time ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.