Duste v. Chevron Products Company, Inc.

Filing 94

ORDER RE: PREVAILING PARTY; ORDER DECLINING TO AWARD COSTS re 87 Bill of Costs filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 82 Bill of Costs filed by Richard A. Duste. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/10/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

Northern District of California

8
9

RICHARD DUSTE,

No. CV08-3980 MEJ
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER RE: PREVAILING PARTY

v.
ORDER DENYING COSTS

11
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CHEVRON PRODUCTS CO., INC.,
13

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

14
15

On November 7, 2011, the parties filed a proposed judgment in this matter. Dkt No. 89. The

16

parties are in agreement except as to paragraph 3, which provides as follows: “Defendant is the

17

prevailing party within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54 and is entitled to

18

recover its costs of suit incurred herein.” Defendant argues that this paragraph should be included in

19

the Court’s judgment because the Court granted summary judgment in its favor on seven out of eight

20

of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Def.’s Mem., Dkt. No. 93. In response, Plaintiff argues that

21

Defendant is not the prevailing party and should not be awarded costs because he prevailed at trial

22

and is therefore the prevailing party. Pl.’s Sep. Stmt. Re: Prop. J., Dkt. No. 92.

23

A prevailing party for the purposes of costs is the party “in whose favor judgment is

24

rendered.” San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 568

25

F.3d 725, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court

26

has held that a prevailing party need not win with respect to each and every issue; rather, prevailing

27

party status can be accorded “when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his

28

claims.” Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1980) (per curiam). Thus, the plaintiff need not

1

succeed on the “central issue” of the case and obtain the “primary relief sought.” Tex. State

2

Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 790 (1989). Whether costs are

3

awarded is a decision to be made by the district judge, and her decision will not be overturned unless

4

she has abused her discretion. K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir. 1974)

5

In this case, each of the parties obtained judgment in their favor from either the Court on

Defendant on the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint for negligence, intentional interference with

8

contractual relations, negligent interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of

9

emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, libel, breach of contract, and violation

10

of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Dkt. No. 36. Subsequently, a jury

11

returned a verdict on October 7, 2011 after trial in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for slander.

12
For the Northern District of California

summary judgment or the jury at the conclusion of the trial. The Court granted judgment in favor of

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Dkt. No. 81. Therefore, since each party prevailed, at least in part, the Court in its exercise of

13

discretion pursuant to Rule 54(d) declines to award costs to either party under the particular

14

circumstances of this case. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation

15

omitted) (“In the event of a mixed judgment, however, it is within the discretion of a district court to

16

require each party to bear its own costs.”); Allen & O'Hara, Inc. v. Barrett Wrecking, Inc., 898 F.2d

17

512, 517 (7th Cir.1990) (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs where both

18

parties prevailed in part); Johnson v. Nordstrom–Larpenteur Agency, Inc., 623 F.2d 1279, 1282 (8th

19

Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1042 (1980) (plaintiff prevailed in part on her claims and defendant

20

prevailed on its counterclaim; no abuse of discretion to order each party to bear its own costs).

21

Accordingly, neither side shall receive an award of costs.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: November 9, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2