McClelland v. Permanente Medical Group

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/18/2013. To evaluate efficacy of awarding defendant costs in matter, plaintiff SHALL file a Statement with Court, within 21 days of issuance of Order, attesting to current state of her financial resources. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ELIZABETH McCLELLAND,
NO. CIV. S-11-1224 LKK/EFB PS

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.
O R D E R

13

THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC.,

14
Defendant.
/

15

The court is in receipt of Defendant’s submitted Bill of

16
17

Costs, totaling $2,718.21.

Def’s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 37.

18

Plaintiff Elizabeth McClelland, a pro se litigant, brought

19

this action alleging that she was terminated on the basis of her

20

disability

21

adjudication of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, this court

22

entered judgment for Defendant.

23

ECF No. 31; Order, ECF No. 35.

in

violation

of

state

and

federal

law.

Upon

See Findings & Recommendations,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs the taxation of

24
25

////

26

////
1

1

costs to the prevailing party in a civil matter.1

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), unless a court order

3

provides otherwise, costs (other than attorney’s fees) “should be

4

allowed to the prevailing party.”

5

that costs will be taxed against the losing party.

6

Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th

7

Cir.

8

demonstrated why costs should not be awarded, the rule “vests in

9

the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.”

2000)

(en

banc).

Pursuant to

This rule creates a presumption

However,

if

the

losing

Ass’n of

party

has

Id., at

10

591; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir.

11

2003) (“the losing party must show why costs should not be

12

awarded”). If the court declines to award costs, it must state its

13

reasons, giving the reviewing court an opportunity to determine if

14

that discretion was abused.

Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945.

15

In considering whether costs should be denied, this court

16

considers: the losing party’s limited financial resources; the

17

chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights

18

litigants; whether the issues in the case are close and difficult;

19

and whether Plaintiff’s case, although unsuccessful, had some

20

merit.

Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93.

21

To evaluate the efficacy of awarding Defendant costs in this

22

matter, Plaintiff SHALL file a statement with the court, within

23

twenty-one (21) days of the issuance of this order, attesting to

24

the current state of her financial resources.

25
1

26

In the Eastern District of California, this rule
implemented by Local Rule 292. E.D. Cal. R. 292 (2013).
2

is

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED:

July 18, 2013.

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