Oshilaya et al v. Watterson et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying as moot plas' 40 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/2/2009.(LAD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adeshina O. Oshilaja, Rebecca ) S. Indermaur, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Ms. Yvonne Watterson; Gateway ) Community High School; ) Gateway Community College; ) Maricopa County Community ) College District, ) ) ) Defendants.

No. CIV 05-3429-PHX-RCB ORDER

In accordance with this court's order, the Clerk of the Court entered a Taxation of Costs Order in the amount of $3,302.10 (doc. 39). Plaintiffs were to pay those costs to defendants because the See Oshilaja v. Watterson, Currently pending before

latter had prevailed in this action.

2007 WL 2903029 (D.Ariz. Sept. 30, 2007).

the court is a "Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs Order" by plaintiffs pro se, Adeshina O. Oshilaja and Rebecca S. Indermaur (doc. 40). Claiming severe financial hardship if

plaintiffs are required to pay those taxable costs, they are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeking to have the court "forgive[] . . . th[a]t debt."

Id. at 2.

Defendants respond that plaintiffs' motion is moot because they "have not attempted to recover their costs from plaintiffs despite the award, and they have no intention to do so in the future." Resp. (doc. 41) at 1:24-26. Generally a case is "moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120

S.Ct. 1382, 1390, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A case becomes moot if "subsequent events

[make] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Friends of the Earth,

Inc. V. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170, 129 S.Ct. 693, 698, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (citation omitted). In the present case, at this juncture no allegedly wrongful behavior is at issue. Nonetheless, because subsequent events, in

the form of defendants' assurances upon which the court relies, have made it "absolutely clear" that they will not be seeking previously awarded taxable costs from plaintiffs, the court DENIES as moot plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the taxation order (doc. 40). There is no longer a live controversy in this Accordingly, plaintiffs will not be

case as to the taxable costs.

required to pay defendants' costs despite the prior Taxation of Costs Order. Thus, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for ...

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reconsideration (doc. 40) is DENIED as moot. DATED this 2nd day of June, 2009.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiffs pro se

-3-