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.

Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division

July 19, 2017

CONCORDIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
METHOD PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Hon. Glen E. Conrad United States District Judge.

         This case is presently before the court on the bill of costs filed by the plaintiff, Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Concordia"), pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, the court will award Concordia costs in the amount of $15, 377.59.

         Procedural History

         Concordia prevailed before a jury on its claim that defendants Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Matthew Scott Tucker (collectively, "Method") engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). The jury awarded Concordia $733, 200.00 in actual or compensatory damages. On March 2, 2017, the court granted Concordia's motion for enhanced damages. The court exercised its discretion to treble the jury's damages award. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

         Concordia also sought to recover its litigation costs. See Id. (providing that a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover "the costs of the action"). On March 2, 2017, the court denied the motion for litigation costs without prejudice, because Concordia did not request a specific amount of costs or submit any evidence in support of the request. Concordia was given thirty days in which to file a bill of costs along with supporting documentation.

         The case is now before the court on Concordia's request for an award of costs in the amount of $17, 007.69. The time to respond to the bill of costs has expired, and Method has not filed any opposition. The matter is ripe for review.

         Summary of the Applicable Law

"Under Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, costs 'should be allowed to the prevailing party' unless a federal statute provides otherwise." Williams v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 636 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1)). Thus, the rule "creates the presumption that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party." Cherry v. Champion Int'l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). Although the court has the discretion to deny an award of costs, it must "articulat[e] some good reason for doing so, " in order to "overcome the presumption." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

         The particular expenses that may be taxed as costs under Rule 54(d)(1) are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

         A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily ...

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.