Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4490
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Taniguchi fell through a deck on Kan Pacific premises during a property tour and incurred injuries.
- Taniguchi filed a negligence action; after discovery, the district court granted Kan Pacific summary judgment.
- The district court awarded Kan Pacific costs, including translation of documents from Japanese to English.
- Taniguchi appealed the cost award, arguing insurer payment precluded costs and questioning translation costs.
- The district court’s costs decision was reviewed for abuse of discretion and lawfulness of cost authorities.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding insurer payment did not bar costs and translation costs were recoverable under §1920(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Kan Pacific recover costs when insurer paid the defense | Taniguchi | Kan Pacific | Kan Pacific entitled to costs despite insurer payment |
| Whether translation costs fall within §1920(6) as recoverable costs | Taniguchi | Kan Pacific | Translation costs recoverable under §1920(6) as interpretation services |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1949) (insurer as real party in interest when insurer pays loss (distinct context))
- Hilbrands v. Far East Trading Co., Inc., 509 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1975) (real party in interest; insurer-paid benefits context)
- Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo, 929 F.2d 633 (11th Cir. 1991) (recovery of costs paid by insurer permissible)
- Extra Equipamentos E Exportação Ltda. v. Case Corp., 541 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2008) (translation vs. interpretation distinction in §1920(6))
- Quy v. Air America Inc., 667 F.2d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (translation of deposition testimony authorized under §1920(6))
- Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1990) (district courts have discretion to determine costs award scope)
- Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1990) (interpretation of §1920(6) categories by district courts)
- Sea Coast Foods, Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster and Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for costs is abuse of discretion)