United States Ninth Circuit

In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's award of fees and costs in plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) action against a bank, the order is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to comply with the local rules governing motions for taxable costs; and 2) given plaintiff's failure to meet his burden to show that the fees sought were at prevailing rates, the district court acted within its discretion when it adopted defendant's suggested hourly rates and rejected plaintiff's. However, the order is reversed in part where the expense-shifting provision in the FCRA authorized district courts to award costs that otherwise would be non-taxable under 28 U.S.C. section 1920, which generally authorized the award of certain specified costs.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/04/2010
• Decided 05/20/2010
• Published 05/20/2010

Judges

• Before PAMELA ANN RYMER, KIM McLANE WARDLAW and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert S. Green, Jenelle Welling, and Charles D. Marshall of Green Welling, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for the appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jan T. Chilton, Mark D. Lonergan, and Jon D. Ives of Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee.