Simo

MEMORANDUM **

Following a grant of summary judgment to appellees, the district court taxed costs to appellants in the amount of $66,902.88. Appellants moved to re-tax costs. The district court denied the motion to re-tax, which denial is the subject of this appeal; we affirm.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that costs “shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Although the rule creates a “presumption in favor of taxing costs to the losing party,” the district court has discretion to re-tax costs, and the court of appeals “review[s] the district court’s denial of a motion to re-tax costs for an abuse of discretion.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069,1079 (9th Cir.1999).

We have found an abuse of discretion only where the district court has failed to consider important factors bearing upon the question of whether to re-tax costs. Id. In this case, the district court considered, and rejected, appellants’ arguments that re-taxing was justified due to: 1) the economic disparity between the union and the allegedly indigent workers; 1 2) allegations that the union had needlessly increased costs associated with…