Roberts v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, et. al.

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on March 13, 2015. Plaintiffs objections to defendants bill of costs are SUSTAINED. Defendants request to recover their costs 47 in this matter is DENIED. (Rivas, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELSA ROBERTS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-2506 CKD
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Defendants have submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $7,150.21, to which plaintiff

19

objects. Plaintiff contends that costs should not be awarded to defendants because she cannot

20

afford the cost bill and because awarding costs would have a chilling effect. Alternatively,

21

plaintiff argues that the costs should be partially refused because not all of the costs meet the

22

statutory criteria for award. Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental affidavit regarding her costs

23

of living, income, assets, and debts.

24

Under Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “costs--other than attorney’s

25

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The “rule creates a presumption in favor of

26

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

27

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

28

This discretion, however, is not without limits. “A district court must ‘specify reasons’ for its
1

1

refusal to award costs.” Id. Costs are properly denied when a plaintiff “would be rendered

2

indigent should she be forced to pay” the amount assessed. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d

3

1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999). An additional factor that is appropriately considered in determining

4

whether costs should be awarded is the potential chilling effect that the imposition of high costs

5

may have on future litigants of modest means. Id.

6

In this case, plaintiff has provided a supplemental affidavit regarding her financial

7

resources. Plaintiff states, under penalty of perjury, that she receives monthly Social Security

8

disability benefits in the amount of $1,334 and has $2,000 in her bank account. Plaintiff’s

9

monthly costs of living, including rent, car insurance, transportation costs total approximately

10

$850. Plaintiff also has credit card debt in the amount of $18,000 and is in collection proceedings

11

relative to that debt. Due to plaintiff’s receipt of disability benefits, it is unlikely plaintiff will

12

secure employment in the near future. In light of plaintiff’s present debt burden, the court finds

13

that an award of costs in the amount claimed by defendants would likely render plaintiff indigent.

14

In addition, in pressing her claims under the ADA and FEHA, plaintiff raised significant

15

legal issues regarding appropriate accommodations and engagement with plaintiff in the

16

interactive process. Although the court ultimately found that plaintiff had a failure of proof and

17

summary judgment was granted for defendants, an award of significant costs against plaintiff in

18

the circumstances presented here could deter other litigants with limited financial resources from

19

pursuing similar, but meritorious, claims.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. Plaintiff’s objections to defendants’ bill of costs are sustained.

22

2. Defendants’ request to recover their costs in this matter is denied.

23

Dated: March 13, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27

4 roberts.taxcosts

28
2