Danielle Smith et al v. Pepsi Americas et al

Filing 235

ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' BILL OF COSTS RE: DANIELLE SMITH AND JO ANN WAKELAND (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HARRY WHITLOCK, et al.,

8
9

Plaintiffs,

ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ BILL
OF COSTS RE: DANIELLE SMITH AND
JO ANN WAKELAND

v.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 08-2742 SI

PEPSI AMERICAS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

/

12
13

In an order filed July 13, 2011, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

14

the claims alleged by plaintiffs Danielle Smith and Jo Ann Wakeland. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and

15

Civil Local Rule 54-1, defendants filed bills of costs seeking costs in the amount of $5,829.35 against

16

Smith and $7,418.80 against Wakeland. Plaintiffs have objected to the bills of costs on the ground that

17

they are unable to pay the cost bills, and because of the significant financial disparity between the

18

parties. Ms. Wakeland has filed a declaration stating that her only source of income is $800 per month

19

in Social Security benefits, and plaintiffs’ counsel has filed a declaration stating that Ms. Smith is a

20

Medi-Cal recipient and that she has four children.

21

The taxation of costs lies within the trial court’s discretion. In re Media Vision Tech. Secs.

22

Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996). District courts may consider a variety of factors in

23

determining whether to exercise their discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party. These factors

24

include great economic disparity between the parties, and the losing party’s limited financial resources,

25

Assoc. of Mexican-American Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000), both of which are

26

present here. Based upon the record in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion

27

and sustain plaintiffs’ objections to the bills of costs.

28

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS plaintiffs’ objections to the bills of costs and
DENIES defendants bills of costs.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: October 26, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2