Wong Lai v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS 169 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANAREGHINA WONG LAI,

Case No. 13-cv-05183-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK'S
TAXATION OF COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 169

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff AnaReghina Wong Lai’s motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs

14

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) is scheduled for hearing on March 20, 2015.

15

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for

16

resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the

17

Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

18
BACKGROUND

19
20

Defendants Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company received a judgment against

21

plaintiff on November 25, 2014 after a trial by jury. Dkt. No. 163. Defendants then filed a Bill of

22

Costs and sought to recover costs in the amount of $21,408.75. Dkt. No. 164. Plaintiff filed

23

objections to the Bill of Costs. Dkt. No. 166. On January 16, 2015, the Clerk issued its notice of

24

Taxation of Costs, taxing costs in the amount of $13,240.37. Dkt. No. 168. Plaintiff now seeks

25

review of the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs.

26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the district court to tax costs. Pursuant to

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs incurred by the prevailing party may be assessed

2

against the losing party as of course and may be taxed by the Clerk. “Unless a federal statute,

3

these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be

4

allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in

5

favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and it is incumbent upon the losing party to

6

demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069,

7

1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as follows:

8

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or
electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the
case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees
for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5)
Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of
court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries,
fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under
section 1828 of this title.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Civil Local Rule 54-3 provides additional “standards for interpreting the costs allowed

14

under section 1920.” Intermedics v. Ventritex, Co., No. C-90-20233, 1993 WL 515879, at *1

15

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 1993). Upon motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs, the Clerk’s

16

actions may be reviewed by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The taxation of costs lies within

17

the trial court’s discretion. In re Media Vision Tech. Secs. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D.

18

Cal. 1996).

19

If the district court wishes to depart from the presumption in favor of awarding costs, it

20

must give reasons for doing so by explaining “why a case is not ‘ordinary’ and why, in the

21

circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” Ass’n. of Mexican-

22

American Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts may consider a

23

variety of factors in determining whether to exercise their discretion to deny costs to the prevailing

24

party. These factors include great economic disparity between the parties, and the losing party’s

25

limited financial resources. Id.

26
27
28

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the Court can deny taxation of costs because of the “losing party’s
2

1

limited resources.” Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d at 591-92. Plaintiff

2

asserts that "[c]osts should be denied because Plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled, is not

3

gainfully employed, and therefore would suffer extreme hardship if required to pay these costs."

4

Dkt. 169 at 3:6-8.

5

Having reviewed the motion as well as the exhibits provided in support of defendants’

6

opposition to the motion, the Court finds no evidentiary support for plaintiff's claims of financial

7

hardship. Plaintiff has provided no declarations, affidavits, or evidence showing indigence or

8

limited financial resources that would demonstrate financial hardship in connection with paying

9

costs under 54(d).

In contrast, defendants provide ample evidence of plaintiff’s financial

resources, including household W-2 income of $158,982 in 2012. Dkt. No. 167, Ex. 2 at 14. At

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

trial, plaintiff’s husband testified he now makes over $200,000 per year. Dkt. No. 170, Decl. 1.

12

Furthermore, plaintiff paid her expert at least $13,850 in 2014 alone, which is more than the

13

present costs taxed by the Clerk. Dkt. No. 171. The Court finds it is not inappropriate or

14

inequitable for plaintiff to pay costs, as she has significant resources.

15

Plaintiff also argues that the breach of contract issue in the case was “difficult and close,”

16

and thus costs should be denied. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 591-92. The

17

Court disagrees. The only issue at trial was a breach of contract claim, which the jury decided in

18

less than two hours. Dkt. No. 156, 158. Further the Court finds an award of costs to the

19

prevailing party in this case will not have a “chilling effect” on disability insurance lawsuits, as

20

each such claim is highly individualized depending on particular contract language and an

21

individual’s disabilities. Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that costs be awarded to the

22

prevailing defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

///
3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs is
DENIED. Dkt. No. 169.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

Dated: February 27, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4