Demarest v. The City of Vallejo California et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/29/2020 DENYING Defendants' 75 Request for Bill of Costs. No costs will be taxed in this action.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID P. DEMAREST, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-02271-MCE-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER CITY OF VALLEJO CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 By way of this action, Plaintiff David P. Demarest (“Plaintiff”) sought to recover for 18 constitutional violations arising from his arrest at a sobriety checkpoint run by Defendant 19 City of Vallejo (the “City”). The gist of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the City and 20 co-Defendant Officer Jodi Brown (“Officer Brown”) (collectively “Defendants”) was that 21 requiring Plaintiff to present his driver’s license at the checkpoint constituted an 22 unreasonable search and that Officer Brown used excessive force in effectuating his 23 subsequent arrest. The Court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. ECF 24 No. 73. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ subsequent Bill of Costs (“BOC”). 25 ECF No. 75. 26 Plaintiff objects to the taxing of costs because the BOC is unsupported by 27 documentation and because awarding costs would have a chilling effect on civil rights 28 case. The Court agrees that Defendants’ failure to support their cost request is fatal. 1 1 Indeed, Local Rule 292(b) provides: 2 Within fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment or order under which costs may be claimed, the prevailing party may serve on all other parties and file a bill of costs conforming to 28 U.S.C. § 1924. The cost bill shall itemize the costs claimed and shall be supported by a memorandum of costs and an affidavit of counsel that the costs claimed are allowable by law, are correctly stated, and were necessarily incurred. Cost bill forms shall be available from the Clerk upon request or on the Court's website. 3 4 5 6 7 Defendants’ filing does not include the requisite supporting evidence itemizing 8 costs such that the Court can determine whether they were in fact appropriate.1 Having 9 failed to adhere to the applicable rules, Defendants’ request is DENIED. No costs will be 10 11 12 taxed in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendants did thereafter file a “Response” containing numerous pages of supporting evidence for their claims, but that was too little, too late. 1 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?