Haley Videckis et al v. Ryan Weisenberg et al

Filing 271

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: denying 254 MOTION for Costs; 255 MOTION to Amend/Correct ; 257 Motion to Clerk to Tax Costs; MOTION to Amend/Correct. The court DENIES Pepperdines Motion to Amend Judgment or, in the Alternative, Reconsider its Order Re: 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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-00298 DDP (JCx)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
RECONSIDER ORDER
[Dkts. 254, 255, 257, 258]

22
23

Presently before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment or, in the

24

Alternative, Reconsider its Order Re: Costs. Having considered the parties’ submissions,

25

the court adopts the following Order.

26

I. BACKGROUND

27
28

Plaintiffs Haley 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

1
2
3
4
5

in as a result of Plaintiffs’ dating relationship while they were teammates. (Dkt. 41). As
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

6

University. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (TAC) raises seven causes of action,

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

distress. (Dkt. 31).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

The court ordered that each party bear its own costs (Dkt. 252). Defendant moves to

26

amend the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e) or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of

27

the Order, Dkt. 252.

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to amend or alter a
judgment. “[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the
motion.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Amending a judgment after entry remains
“an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-18 governs motions for reconsideration.

8

Such motions may be made only on the grounds of: “(a) a material difference in fact or

9

law from that presented to the Court . . . that . . . could not have been known to the party

10

moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new

11

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a

12

manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before

13

such decision.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. A motion for reconsideration may not, “in any

14

manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the

15

original motion.” Id.

16

III. DISCUSSION

17

In the present motion, Defendant Pepperdine University (“Pepperdine”) moves

18

the court to amend the judgment and reconsider its prior Order denying costs, Dkt. 252.

19

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

20

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

21

costs.” Ass'n of Mexican–American Educ. v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir.2000) (en

22

banc). Appropriate reasons for denying costs may include, but are not limited to, "1) the

23

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

24

the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial

25

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

26

1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). In its prior Order, the court concluded that these factors

27

weighed against awarding costs to Pepperdine as the prevailing party. (Dkt. 252).

28

Pepperdine asserts that “none of the five bases” apply. (Def.’s Mot. at 4).
3

First, Pepperdine claims that the case did not raise issues of substantial public

1
2
3
4
5

importance. Even though Plaintiffs did not ultimately prevail at trial, their case raised the
important and unsettled legal question of whether Title IX applies to sexual orientation
discrimination. See Videckis, 150 F.Supp.3d at 1159. Pepperdine does not contest the
public importance of this issue, but instead alleges that “Plaintiffs asserted something

6

that just was not true.” (Id. at 4). The court declines to assess the public importance of the

7

case solely through the lens of the jury verdict. See Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, No. 1:09

8

–CV–1878 LJO MJS, 2012 WL 174847, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012).
Next, Pepperdine claims that the issues in the case were not close or difficult

9
10

because the jury spent four hours deliberating over the case. “However, the jury's

11

ultimate rejection of Plaintiff[s’] claims does not undermine the legal and factual issues

12

involved in the case.” Id. The claims in this case were not frivolous, and they were

13

vigorously litigated. As articulated in this court’s prior Order, “the legal claims that

14

Plaintiffs brought under Title IX were relatively novel and unsettled in this circuit, and

15

the factual issues raised in the seventeen-day trial in this matter were numerous and

16

complex.” 1 (Dkt. 252, at 3).
Pepperdine also claims that “there is no evidence that Plaintiffs lack financial

17
18

resources.” Even if that were true, the court’s prior Order relied upon the relative

19

disparity in financial resources between the parties. (Dkt. 252, at 4). There is no evidence

20

that Plaintiffs’ financial resources as students would rival or outweigh Pepperdine’s own.

21

The court therefore concludes that this factor continues to weigh against an award of

22

costs.
Pepperdine argues that an award of costs would not create a chilling effect. It

23
24

claims that awarding costs in this case would “incentivize potential plaintiffs to actually

25
26
27
28

Pepperdine, in a concurrent motion for attorneys’ fees, claims that “this issue was
addressed over the years by a landslide of federal authority.” (Dkt. 256, at 4.) Pepperdine
cites to ten cases. However, none of the ten cases cited are within this circuit, and only a
handful purport to address sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX.
4
1

1
2
3
4
5

make their claims prior to litigation so that the claims can be resolved promptly and to
their benefit.” (Def.’s Mot. at 5). Yet that argument assumes, inter alia, that Plaintiffs did
not raise their concerns internally, that Plaintiffs could expect their concerns to be
favorably and promptly “resolved,” and that Plaintiffs did not fear retaliation. Instead,
the court finds that awarding costs would discourage a prospective civil rights plaintiff,

6

especially a student, from vindicating their rights under Title IX. “Title IX litigation will

7

frequently be brought by students, who . . . must often finance education with a

8

significant amount of student loans. Risking the imposition of thousands of dollars in

9

costs in addition to these loans in order to vindicate rights they are guaranteed as

10

students would likely deter potential litigants . . . .” Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of

11

California at Davis, 566 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

12

Considered together, these factors counsel in favor of denying costs. Plaintiffs, in

13

their opposition, additionally argue that Pepperdine should be subject to sanctions for

14

challenging the court’s Order Re: Costs. The courts declines to impose sanctions.

15

IV. CONCLUSION

16

For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Pepperdine’s Motion to Amend

17

Judgment or, in the Alternative, Reconsider its Order Re: Costs.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: October 23, 2017

21

___________________________________

22

DEAN D. PREGERSON

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
5