context: As discussed above, Plaintiffs failure to file a motion to dismiss earlier does not constitute conduct sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of sanctions or the awarding of attorney's fees. The Court does find, nonetheless, that Plaintiff should be made to pay Defendants' costs that were reasonably incurred in the defense of this case.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 828 F.Supp. 1444, 1444, 1447-49
citation_a.parenthetical: The award of legal costs was proper where Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice a RICO claim that had not been sufficiently researched
citation_a.sentence: See O’Ferral v. Trebol Motors Corp., 45 F.3d 561, 564 (1st Cir.1995) (District court has discretion to award costs beyond those specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920); cf. Burnette, 828 F.Supp. at 1444, 1447-49 (The award of legal costs was proper where Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice a RICO claim that had not been sufficiently researched).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 45 F.3d 561, 564
citation_b.parenthetical: District court has discretion to award costs beyond those specified in 28 U.S.C. SS 1920
citation_b.sentence: See O’Ferral v. Trebol Motors Corp., 45 F.3d 561, 564 (1st Cir.1995) (District court has discretion to award costs beyond those specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920); cf. Burnette, 828 F.Supp. at 1444, 1447-49 (The award of legal costs was proper where Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice a RICO claim that had not been sufficiently researched).