Wieland v. City and County of Honolulu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PATRICK ANDREW WIELAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU, ARTHUR LOGAN,
CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE
HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY ONLY; DAMIEN DESA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DOE
POLICE OFFICERS 1-15,
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 24-00215 DKW-RT
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO
SUSTAIN PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR TAXATION OF
COSTS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO SUSTAIN PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR TAXATION OF COSTS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Patrick Andrew Wieland’s (“Plaintiff”)
Objection to Defendants’ Request for Taxation of Costs (“Objection”), filed
February 3, 2026. ECF No. 86. Plaintiff objects to Defendants City and County of
Honolulu and Damien Desa’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Request for Taxation of
Costs (“Bill of Costs”), filed on January 28, 2026. ECF No. 85. Plaintiff objects
on the basis that the Bill of Costs is untimely.
Case 1:24-cv-00215-DKW-RT Document 87 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
The Court elects to decide the Bill of Costs without a hearing pursuant to
Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii (“Local Rule” or “LR”). After careful consideration of the
Bill of Costs, Objection, records in this case and applicable law, the Court
RECOMMENDS that the Objection be SUSTAINED and the Bill of Costs be
DENIED in its entirety.
DISCUSSION
Judgement in this case was entered by the Clerk’s Office on December 9,
2025. ECF No. 80. Defendants filed their Bill of Costs on January 28, 2026, and
requests taxable costs in the amount of $2,484.59. ECF No. 85. Plaintiff argues
that the Bill of Costs is untimely and thus, the request for the taxation of costs
should be denied. ECF No. 86. Pursuant to LR54.1(b),
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a Bill of Costs shall be filed
and served within fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment, the entry of an
order denying a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 52(b), or 59, or an
order remanding to state court any removed action.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Bill of Costs is untimely. It is clear that
more than 14 days have elapsed between December 9, 2025 (date of entry of
judgment) and the filing of the Bill of Costs (filed January 28, 2026). Further,
there is no order denying a Rule 50(b), 52(b) or 59 motion; and there is no order
remanding this action to state court.
Case 1:24-cv-00215-DKW-RT Document 87 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on December 8, 2025.
ECF No. 78. However, a pending appeal does not divest this Court of jurisdiction
to review requests for attorneys’ fees and bill of costs nor does it extend the any of
the deadlines associated with these requests. See Firsov v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, Civ. No. 23-00429 LEK-KJM, 2025 WL 1072026, at *1 (D. Haw. Mar.
21, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, Civ. No. 23-00429 LEK-KJM,
2025 WL 1067182 (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2025) (citing Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d
1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999)). Thus, the deadline to file the Bill of Costs was on
December 23, 2025, which is 14 days after the entry of judgment. It is irrefutable
that the Bill of Costs is untimely.
Pursuant to LR54.1(a), “Non-compliance with any provision of LR54.1 shall
be deemed a waiver of costs.” Accordingly, because the Bill of Costs is untimely
and does not comply with the requirements in 54.1(b), the Court finds that
Defendants have waived their costs. The Court recommends that the district court
sustain Plaintiff’s objection and deny the Bill of Costs.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that by failing to timely file their Bill of Costs, Defendants
have waived their costs. The Court thus RECOMMENDS that the Objection be
SUSTAINED and the Bill of Costs be DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-00215-DKW-RT Document 87 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 3, 2026.
Civ. No. 24-00215 DKW-RT; Patrick Andrew Wieland vs. City and County of
Honolulu, et al.; Findings and Recommendation to Sustain Plaintiff’s Objection to
Defendants’ Request for Taxation of Costs
Rom A. Trader
United States Magistrate Judge
Andrade
Case 1:24-cv-00215-DKW-RT Document 87 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>