Monica Bruce et al v. Teleflora LLC

Filing 113

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE CLERKS TAXATION OFCOSTS 108 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MONICA BRUCE; DONNA STUBBS,
Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY

TELEFORA, LLC,
Defendant.

15

Case № 2:13-cv-3279-ODW(CWx)

THE CLERK’S TAXATION OF
COSTS [108]

16

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

17

On June 18, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal but

18

denied Plaintiffs’ request to bar Defendant from obtaining prevailing-party costs.

19

(ECF No. 97.)

20

conditional dismissal, and Plaintiffs accepted. (ECF Nos. 97–98.) On July 18, 2014,

21

the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 101.) On August 4, 2014,

22

Defendant filed a Corrected Notice of Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs seeking

23

$8,463.62. (ECF No. 104.) Ultimately, the Clerk authorized $7,231.12. (ECF Nos.

24

105–107.) Plaintiffs now request the Court review the Clerk’s decision and vacate or

25

substantially reduce the amount imposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court

26

DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.1 (ECF No. 108.)

The Court gave Plaintiffs the option to accept or decline the

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

1

On May 8, 2013, Plaintiffs Monica Bruce and Donna Stubbs, on behalf of all

2

others similarly situated, initiated the instant action and alleged that they purchased

3

and received floral arrangements from Defendant Teleflora that were either inferior to

4

the arrangements ordered or delivered after the agreed-upon delivery date. (FAC ¶ 2.)

5

Plaintiffs’ asserted: (1) violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2)

6

violations of the California Unfair Competition Law; (3) Breach of Express Contract;

7

and (4) Breach of Express Warranty. (ECF No. 18.)

8

On July 1, 2013, Defendant moved to strike portions of the First Amended

9

Complaint and dismiss Plaintiffs’ California statutory claims. (ECF No. 25.) The

10

Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike but dismissed the California statutory

11

claims. (ECF No. 41.)

12

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. (ECF

13

No. 43.) On December 19, 2013, the Court denied the Motion. (ECF No. 92.) On

14

April 29, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice because it was

15

not economical to pursue their claims individually. (ECF No. 93.) Plaintiffs also

16

requested the Court bar Defendant from obtaining prevailing-party costs or attorneys’

17

fees. (Id.) Plaintiffs argued that Defendant should not be entitled to costs as a

18

condition of dismissal because the case involved limited discovery, the breach of

19

contract and breach of warranty claims had a realistic chance of success on the merits,

20

and their financial resources were limited. (Id.) Defendant contended that dismissal

21

did not obviate its right to prevailing-party costs under Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 54(d).2 (ECF No. 94.)

23

The Court concluded that “the discretionary factors [did] not justify abandoning

24

the presumption of Telefora’s right to seek prevailing-party costs,” and the

25
26
27
28

2

The Court considered Rule 54(d) and the factors courts should consider when determining whether
prevailing-party costs should be denied: (1) the losing party’s limited financial resources;
(2) misconduct on the part of the prevailing party; (3) the importance and complexity of the issues;
and (4) the merit of the plaintiff’s case, even if the plaintiff loses. See Save Our Valley v. Sound
Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Assn. of Mex.–Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d
572, 592 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

1

“circumstances of this action [were] not so extraordinary that it would be

2

inappropriate to award Telefora party costs.”

3

Plaintiffs two weeks to accept or decline the conditional dismissal, and Plaintiffs

4

accepted. (ECF Nos. 97–98.) On July 18, 2014, the Court dismissed the action with

5

prejudice. (ECF No. 101.)

6

(ECF No. 97.)

The Court gave

On August 4, 2014, Defendant filed a Corrected Notice of Application to the

7

Clerk to Tax Costs seeking $8,463.62.

(ECF No. 104.) Plaintiffs objected and

8

Defendant responded. (ECF Nos. 105–106.) The Clerk allowed $7,231.12. (ECF

9

No. 107.)

10

Plaintiffs now request the Court review the Clerk’s decision and vacate or

11

substantially reduce the amount imposed. (ECF No. 108.) As Defendant correctly

12

argues, after the Court found that Defendant is entitled to recover its costs:

13
14

[A]ll that remained to be determined by the Clerk is what

15

specific costs Teleflora would be awarded, and not whether

16

Teleflora is entitled to costs as a prevailing party based upon

17

the various equitable factors that a Court may consider and

18

indeed, which this Court already considered in its June 16,

19

2014 Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.

20

In balancing the various factors, including one party’s

21

financial ability to absorb costs better than another and

22

whether or not the underlying claim was meritorious, the

23

Court found that Teleflora was nevertheless entitled to its

24

costs. Plaintiffs’ rehashing of these same exact arguments,

25

which the Court has already rejected, is therefore improper

26

and should be disregarded.

27
28

(Opp’n 2.)

3

1

The Court finds that the instant Motion largely asserts the same arguments the

2

Court evaluated and rejected in its June 16, 2014 Order—that is, the Court should bar

3

Defendant from obtaining prevailing-party costs because ordering Plaintiffs to pay

4

such costs would be unjust and inequitable. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs’

5

objections to Defendants’ specific costs meritless.

6

conclusory and provide no supporting argument that Defendant’s costs are

7

“impermissible” or “unnecessary.”

8
9
10

Plaintiffs’ arguments are

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate or Modify the
Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. (ECF No. 108.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

March 17, 2015

13
14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4