Haley Videckis et al v. Ryan Weisenberg et al

Filing 252

ORDER RE COSTS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The Court orders that each party bear its own costs. (shb)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA
WHITE,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
v.
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY,
a corporation doing business in
California,

20

Defendant.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

) Case No. 15-cv-00298 DDP (JCx)
)
)
)
) ORDER RE: COSTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The court adopts the following order regarding the division of costs between the
parties in this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Hailey Videckis and Layana White are former student-athletes on
Defendant Pepperdine University’s women’s basketball team. (Dkt. 41). Plaintiffs’ suit
arises from allegedly discriminatory actions that Pepperdine and its employees engaged
in as a result of Plaintiffs’ dating relationship while they were teammates. (Dkt. 41). As

1
2
3
4
5

relevant here, Plaintiffs alleged that Pepperdine and its employees harassed and
discriminated against them on the basis of their lesbian relationship in order to force
them to quit the women’s basketball team. (Dkt. 41).
On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiffs brought suit against Pepperdine
University. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (TAC) raises seven causes of action,

6

including: (1) violation of the right of privacy under the California Constitution; (2)

7

violation of California Educational Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270; (3) violation of Title

8

IX—deliberate indifference; (4) violation of Title IX—intentional discrimination; (5)

9

violation of Title IX—retaliation for complaints against discrimination; (6) violation of the

10

Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional

11

distress. (Dkt. 31).

12

Pepperdine moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ causes of action under Title IX, 20 U.S.C.

13

§ 1681(a), claiming that the statute, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex”

14

does not cover claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Dkt. 33). The

15

court denied Pepperdine’s motion to dismiss, holding that “claims of discrimination

16

based on sexual orientation are covered by [Title] IX, but not as a category of

17

independent claims separate from sex and gender stereotype. Rather, claims of sexual

18

orientation discrimination are gender stereotype or sex discrimination claims.” Videckis v.

19

Pepperdine Univ., 150 F.Supp.3d 1151, 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2015). The court further reasoned

20

that Plaintiffs had stated claims for Title IX discrimination on the basis of gender

21

stereotypes, and on the basis of sex. Id. at 1161.

22

Subsequently, the parties argued the case before a jury. After a seventeen-day jury

23

trial, the jury rendered a judgment in favor of Defendant on all counts. (Dkt. 246, 248).

24

II. LEGAL STANDARD

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) “creates a presumption in favor of

26

awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to

27

award costs.” Ass'n of Mexican–American Educ. v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th

28

Cir.2000) (en banc). Appropriate reasons for denying costs include, but are not limited to,
2

1
2
3
4
5

"1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the
issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited
financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties." Draper v. Rosario,
836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016).
III. DISCUSSION

6

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), a district court may decline

7

to award costs to a prevailing party. In determining whether to exercise its discretion to

8

deny costs, a court may look to the following factors: "1) the substantial public

9

importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the

10

chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial resources, and

11

(5) the economic disparity between the parties." Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d at 1087.

12

As pertinent to this case, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that "divesting district courts

13

of discretion to limit or to refuse such overwhelming costs in important, close, but

14

ultimately unsuccessful civil rights cases like this one might have the regrettable effect of

15

discouraging potential plaintiffs from bringing such cases at all." Ass'n of Mexican-

16

American Educ., 231 F.3d at 591.

17

This is precisely such a case. First, this matter raises issues of substantial public

18

import. In its Order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court ruled on the

19

important and unsettled legal issue of whether Title IX applies to sexual orientation

20

discrimination. Videckis, 150 F.Supp.3d at 1159. Ultimately, the court decided in favor of

21

Plaintiffs, and concluded that Title IX does encompass claims of sexual orientation

22

discrimination, as these may be properly conceived as “gender stereotype or sex

23

discrimination claims.” Id.

24

For similar reasons, the court finds that the legal and factual issues in the case

25

were close and difficult. The legal claims that Plaintiffs’ brought under Title IX were

26

relatively novel and unsettled in this circuit, and the factual issues raised in the

27

seventeen-day trial in this matter were numerous and complex.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5

Furthermore, the court finds that denying costs in this case would have a chilling
effect on future similar civil rights actions. In Stanley v. University of Southern California, a
former women's basketball coach sued the University of Southern California for sex
discrimination. 718 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999). In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled
that a district court abused its discretion in denying the losing plaintiff's motion to re-tax

6

costs without considering the plaintiff's limited financial resources and "the chilling effect

7

of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants." Id.

8
9

Finally, as to the economic disparity between the parties, the court finds that this
factor also tips in favor of denying costs. The financial resources of Defendant vastly

10

outweigh those of Plaintiffs, who were college athletes when the events behind the

11

lawsuit transpired. Moreover, given the length of the litigation, which spanned nearly

12

three years, and complexity of the issues at stake, the costs incurred by Defendants are

13

likely to be substantial.

14

Considered together, these factors each weigh in favor of denying an award of

15

costs to Pepperdine University, the prevailing party.

16

IV. CONCLUSION

17
18

For the reasons stated above, the court orders that each party bear its own costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 11, 2017

21

___________________________________

22

DEAN D. PREGERSON

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4