% discount. Thus, any discount under this agreement could not have applied based on these circumstances. 8 . Additionally, we note that during the February 9, 2006 oral argument before the District Court, Allshore, Inc. acknowledged that it was a proper party. Indeed, Allshore, Inc. noted that the only question with respect to its liability was whether the statute of limitations against it as an entity expired before Hahne-mann filed suit. 9 . We note that this is the only issue Appellants raise on appeal with respect to the District Court’s award of costs. Therefore, we decline to address the issue of the award of Court costs to the extent that some of these costs might have fallen outside of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See, e.g., Agredano v. Mut. of Omaha Cos., 75 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also, Anderson v. Unum
holding that a party can recover costs under either dnmlrciv 542 or 28 usc  1920 holding that section 1132gls allowance for costs of action empowers courts to award only the types of costs allowed by 28 usc  1920 and only in the amounts allowed by section 1920 itself by 28 usc  1821 or by similar such provisions recognizing the supreme courts precept that district courts may decline to tax costs enumerated in  1920 but cannot award costs not enumerated under  1920 citing crawford fitting 482 us at 44245107 sct 2494 holding that  1920 does not authorize taxing mediation fees as costs holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391