Otay Land Co. v. UNITED ENTERPRISES LTD., 672 F.3d 1152

Otay Land Co. and Flat Rock brought federal CERCLA/RCRA and related state claims against United Enterprises and others.
The district court granted summary judgment on federal merits and declined ancillary state claims; later proceedings addressed costs under §1919 after remand.
On remand, the district court awarded United Enterprises costs for transcripts, witnesses, and service fees under §1919, implying a prevailing-party-like rationale.
This court previously vacated and remanded to determine whether §1919 costs were proper; on remand, the district court again awarded costs under §1919.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the cost award as misapplied and remanded to consider the just-costs standard under §1919, noting parallel state litigation and the discretion in §1919.
The case thus returns for a proper §1919 analysis of what constitutes “just costs,” not a presumption of award, with consideration of pending state proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What qualifies as 'just costs' under §1919?	Otay: costs must be fair, not presumptively awarded.	United: costs incurred to defend are just.	Just costs require discretionary, case-specific balancing, not a presumption.
Should parallel state litigation affect §1919 costs?	Otay: pending state case makes federal costs speculative.	United: parallel litigation can inform fairness.	Parallel state actions may factor in but do not alone mandate deferral; remand proper.
Should §1919 costs mirror §1920 itemization or other statutes?	Otay: §1919 is independent of §1920 enumerations.	United: §1920 guidance helpful for itemization.	§1919 governing standard is distinct; §1920 costs are not a substitute for ‘just costs.’
Is there a threshold 'exigency' requirement for §1919 awards?	Otay: no extraordinary circumstances needed.	United: exigent factors may inform fairness.	No strict threshold; exigency are permissible but not required.

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (removal-fee context; objective reasonableness informs fee awards and costs)
Miles v. California, 320 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2003) (§ 1919 discretionary; no presumption in favor of costs)
Signorile v. Quaker Oats Co., 499 F.2d 142 (7th Cir. 1974) (history of § 1919; origins of ‘just costs’)
Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379 (1884) (foundational rule on costs when suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
Callicrate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 139 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 1998) (prematurity concern for costs when merits unresolved in parallel actions)
Ericsson GE Mobile Commc'ns v. Motorola Commc'ns & Elecs., 179 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Ala. 1998) (considerations for awarding costs under §1919)