Plaintiff Gary Wisner MD’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.
On February 18, 2021, Defendant First Health Group Corp. (“Defendant”) filed a Cost Summary asking this Court to award it $2,220 in Filing and Motion Fees, $24 for fees for electronic filing or service, and $564 for Mandatory Courtesy Copies. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs challenging: 1) the filing fees related to Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s original Complaint, as well as Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint were not reasonable and necessary; and that 2) the costs for mandatory courtesy copies to this Court also were not reasonable and necessary. Additionally, Plaintiff challenges any filing fees for Pro Hac Vice applications. Plaintiff concedes that $1840 for filing fees were reasonable and necessary. So the only issues are the $360 in filing fees, and the $540 for mandatory courtesy copies.
In its Reply, Defendant states that no filing
Hearing Date
March 23, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff Gary Wisner MD’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.
On February 18, 2021, Defendant First Health Group Corp. (“Defendant”) filed a Cost Summary asking this Court to award it $2,220 in Filing and Motion Fees, $24 for fees for electronic filing or service, and $564 for Mandatory Courtesy Copies. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs challenging: 1) the filing fees related to Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s original Complaint, as well as Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint were not reasonable and necessary; and that 2) the costs for mandatory courtesy copies to this Court also were not reasonable and necessary. Additionally, Plaintiff challenges any filing fees for Pro Hac Vice applications. Plaintiff concedes that $1840 for filing fees were reasonable and necessary. So the only issues are the $360 in filing fees, and the $540 for mandatory courtesy copies.
In its Reply, Defendant states that no filing