Taylor v. Autozone, Inc.

Filing 295

ORDER that within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiffs shall submit (1) a sworn declaration or affidavit from plaintiffs' counsel affirmatively stating who is responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the Clerk under the fee arrange ment; (2) a copy of the fee arrangement between the named plaintiffs and counsel; and (3) a sworn declaration or affidavit from the four named plaintiffs explicitly stating whether they will be personally responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the Clerk re 292 Motion to Review Clerk's Taxation of Costs. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/8/12.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Michael L. Taylor; Dilawar Khan; Volena)
Glover-Hale; Manuel Montoya, on behalf)
of themselves and other persons similarly)
)
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
AutoZone Inc., a Tennessee corporation;)
AutoZone Inc., a Nevada corporation;)
)
AutoZoners LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CV 10-08125-PCT-FJM
ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' motion to review clerk's taxation of costs (doc. 292),
defendants' response (doc. 293), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 294).

20

Plaintiffs filed this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action, asserting that

21

they were entitled to overtime pay as Store Managers of Autozone. We granted summary

22

judgment to defendants on all claims (doc. 278). Defendants filed an application for costs

23

(doc. 280), to which plaintiffs objected (doc. 283) and defendants responded (doc. 288). The

24

Clerk taxed $66,599.02 in costs against plaintiffs (doc. 291). Plaintiffs move this court to

25

review the costs taxed against them.

26

Under Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., costs are presumptively awarded to the

27

prevailing party, although the court has the discretion to deny the award. The losing party

28

bears the burden of proof to show why we should not award costs. Save Our Valley v. Sound

1

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003). Appropriate reasons to deny costs include "(1)

2

a losing party's limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; [] (3) the

3

chilling effect of imposing [] high costs on future civil rights litigants;" (4) "the issues in the

4

case were close and difficult;" (5) "the prevailing party's recovery was nominal;" (6) "the

5

losing party litigated in good faith;" and (7) "the case presented a landmark issue of national

6

importance." Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th

7

Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

8

Plaintiffs argue in part that their limited financial resources and the potential chilling

9

effect on FLSA litigation weigh in favor of reversing the Clerk's taxation of costs.

10

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not persuasively established that their financial

11

resources are limited, because plaintiffs have not indicated who is ultimately responsible for

12

the payment of costs under their fee agreement with counsel. Plaintiffs have not submitted

13

a copy of the fee agreement or affirmatively confirmed its contents. Although plaintiffs

14

submitted declarations in support of their opposition to the taxation of costs, these

15

declarations do not affirmatively state that they will be ultimately responsible for paying the

16

costs. They simply state that the plaintiffs cannot afford to pay "a judgment" of several

17

thousand dollars (docs. 284, 285, 286, 287).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs argue that "the arrangements that class counsel may have made with their
clients" is not the proper focus. Reply at 3. We disagree. The issue of who will ultimately
incur the taxed costs is directly relevant to two of the factors that the Ninth Circuit (and
plaintiffs) ask us to take into account: the plaintiffs' limited resources (which is irrelevant if
their counsel will cover the costs) and the potential chilling effect on future FLSA litigation.
See Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), 2011 WL 4835742, at *4 (S.D.
Cal. Oct. 12, 2011) (denying motion to deny costs in part because plaintiff "has not argued
that he—as opposed to his counsel, pursuant to a fee agreement—will have to pay the cost
award himself"); Tibble v. Edison Int'l, CV-07-5359-SVW (AGRx), 2011 WL 3759927, at
*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (chilling effect of taxing costs against plaintiffs low because

28
-2-

1

plaintiffs not liable for costs under the fee arrangement). Without this information, we

2

cannot accurately assess whether plaintiffs have overcome Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.'s

3

presumption that costs should be taxed against them.

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this order,

5

plaintiffs shall submit (1) a sworn declaration or affidavit from plaintiffs' counsel

6

affirmatively stating who is responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the Clerk under

7

the fee arrangement; (2) a copy of the fee arrangement between the named plaintiffs and

8

counsel; and (3) a sworn declaration or affidavit from the four named plaintiffs explicitly

9

stating whether they will be personally responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the

10
11

Clerk.
DATED this 8th day of June, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-