Logan v. USA Waste of California, Inc. et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/19/19 DENYING 53 Motion and sustains the award of costs. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JEAN LOGAN,

11

No.

2:17-cv-01154-JAM-CKD

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER SUSTAINING AWARD OF COSTS

USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
a Delaware corporation; BARRY
SKOLNICK, an individual; MARK
SCHWARTZ, an individual,

14
15

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Jean Logan sued her former employer USA Waste of

17
18

California, Inc. and former supervisor Barry Skolnick (together,

19

“Defendants”) for wrongful termination and age and gender

20

harassment and discrimination.

21

Motion for Summary Judgment and taxed costs against Plaintiff.

22

See ECF Nos. 47, 49, 52.

23

review and deny the award of costs.

Plaintiff now moves this Court to
Mot., ECF No. 53.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES

24
25

This Court granted Defendants’

Plaintiff’s motion and sustains the award of costs.1

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for February 19, 2019.
1
1

1
2

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 20, 2018, following a hearing, this Court

3

granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, finding as a

4

matter of law Plaintiff could not sustain her claims of gender or

5

age harassment or of failure to prevent harassment, and that she

6

had conceded all other asserted claims.

7

December 4, 2018, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

54(d)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and Local Rule 292, Defendants filed

9

their Bill of Costs requesting the clerk to tax costs in the

ECF Nos. 47, 49.

On

10

amount of $6,735.41 as verified by counsel and supported by an

11

Itemized Statement of Costs.

12

did not submit objections to the Bill of Costs within seven days,

13

and on December 12, 2018, the clerk taxed costs against Plaintiff

14

in the amount of $6,735.41.

15

ECF Nos. Doc. 50, 51.

Plaintiff

ECF No. 52.

On December 19, 2018, Plaintiff moved this Court to review

16

the taxing of costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(e), arguing the

17

gross disparity in financial resources between Plaintiff and

18

Defendants makes the imposition of costs inequitable.

19

No. 53.

Defendants oppose the motion.

Mot., ECF

Opp’n, ECF No. 57.

20
21
22

II.

OPINION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides, in

23

pertinent part: “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a

24

court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—

25

should be allowed to the prevailing party.”

26

54(d)(1).

27

taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court

28

discretion to refuse to award costs” if the losing party shows

Fed. R. Civ. P.

This rule creates a presumption that costs will be

2

1

why costs should not be awarded.

2

v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591–92 (9th Cir. 2000)

3

(en banc) (“AMAE”).

4

must “specify reasons” for denying costs.

5

92 (citing Subscription Television, Inc. v. S. California Theater

6

Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 234 (9th Cir. 1978)).

7

party’s “limited financial resources” is a valid reason for

8

declining to award costs to a prevailing party.

9

Ass’n of Mexican–Am. Educators

If the court declines to award costs, it
AMAE, 231 F.3d at 591–

A losing

Id. at 592.

Plaintiff argues that the award of costs here is inequitable

10

because Logan is retired, has no present source of income beyond

11

her retirement savings, and her financial resources are very

12

limited compared to those of the prevailing parties.

13

Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit or other evidence

14

demonstrating an inability to pay the costs taxed.

15

however, have provided ample support from the record suggesting

16

Plaintiff has the financial resources to pay the $6,735.41 in

17

costs.

18

Mot. at 3.

Defendants,

Opp’n at 3–4.

The Court finds that an award of costs is not inequitable.

19

Moreover, Plaintiff’s reliance on AMAE, in which the Ninth

20

Circuit upheld the denial of costs where the losing party had

21

limited financial resources, is misplaced.

22

the record demonstrated that the losing party’s resources were

23

limited and the costs taxed were extraordinarily high.

24

F.3d at 593.

25

being an “ordinary” case in which “costs are to be awarded as a

26

matter of course,” AMAE was an “extraordinarily important” case

27

presenting “issues of the gravest public importance” with the

28

potential to affect “tens of thousands of Californians and the

In AMAE, unlike here,

AMAE, 231

The Ninth Circuit also emphasized that, rather than

3

1

state’s public school system as a whole.”

2

is important, particularly to the litigants, this case is not the

3

type of “extraordinary” case described in AMAE.

4

Id.

While every case

Thus, after carefully reviewing and considering Defendants’

5

Bill of Costs, Plaintiff’s Motion, and Defendant’s Opposition,

6

this Court finds that the taxation of costs against Plaintiff in

7

the amount of $6,735.41 is reasonable.

8
9
10

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this Court DENIES

11

Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 53) and sustains the award of costs

12

(ECF No. 52).

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2019

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4