Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER Denying Award of Costs. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/26/17. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DANIELLE PARKER,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

v.

8

COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

9

Case No. 15-cv-05673-TEH
ORDER DENYING AWARD OF
COSTS

Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s bill of costs. Plaintiff

12

asks the Court to decline to award Defendant any costs on the ground that Plaintiff is

13

impoverished and unable to pay. Even though Plaintiff has not filed a motion to deny

14

costs, the Court finds it expeditious to consider her request now before the Clerk of the

15

Court spends time reviewing Defendant’s bill. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

16

DECLINES to award Defendant any costs in the present matter.

17
18
19

BACKGROUND
This case arose out of the May 2013 termination of Plaintiff Danielle Parker

20

(“Plaintiff” or “Parker”) from her position as a sales consultant for Defendant Comcast

21

(“Defendant” or “Comcast”). Plaintiff claimed her termination violated public policy

22

because Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of disability. Defendant

23

contended that Plaintiff’s supervisor and human resources manager, who made the

24

decision to terminate Plaintiff, were not on notice that she suffered from a disability and

25

thus did not terminate her “because of” a disability.

26

Finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the

27

Court granted summary judgment for Defendant on May 25, 2017. ECF No. 68. Judgment

28

was entered in favor of Defendant on the same date. ECF No. 69. Defendant filed their bill

1

of costs on June 6, 2017, seeking $9,028.16 in costs. ECF No. 70. Plaintiff filed a

2

memorandum arguing that costs should be denied or alternatively reduced. ECF No. 72.

3

Because the Court agrees with Plaintiff that asking her to cover the claimed costs would be

4

unjust, the Court does not need to rule on Plaintiff’s objections to specific costs.

5
6
7

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “costs other than attorneys’

8

fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise

9

directs.” “By its terms, the rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a
prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Association of Mexican–American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th

12

Cir. 2000). In order to overcome the presumption, a losing party must show that to award

13

costs to the prevailing party would be unjust. Key v. Chrysler Motors Co., 128 N.M. 739,

14

741 (2000). Though broad, the Court’s “discretion is not unlimited. A district court must

15

specify reasons for its refusal to award costs.” Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at

16

591 (internal quotations omitted).

17

In the Ninth Circuit, there are several factors which may justify denial of costs: “(1)

18

the losing party's limited financial resources; (2) misconduct on the part of the prevailing

19

party; (3) the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants; (4)

20

whether the issues in the case were close and difficult; (5) whether the prevailing party's

21

recovery was nominal or partial; (6) whether the losing party litigated in good faith; and

22

(7) whether the case presented a landmark issue of national importance.” Van Horn v.

23

Dhillon, 2011 WL 66244 at *3 (E.D. Cal., 2011); see also Quan v. Computer Sciences

24

Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby

25

Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003)); Mexican-American Educators,

26

231 F.3d at 592. These factors do not limit the reasons why a court may find justice

27

requires denial of costs; the Ninth Circuit, in listing these reasons for denial, did not intend

28

the list to be exhaustive. Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 593.
2

1
2

DISCUSSION
In this case, the Court finds it necessary to exercise its discretion to decline to award

3

Defendant costs. The Court’s decision rests on three of the seven factors enumerated by

4

the Ninth Circuit in Champion Produce, Inc., 342 F.3d at 1022.

5

First and foremost, the Court notes Plaintiff’s extreme financial hardship.

6

According to her declaration, Parker is unemployed, she does not own a car or a home, she

7

is two months behind on paying rent, and she is approximately $5000 in debt. Parker Decl.

8

¶¶ 1-7 (ECF No. 71). She is a single mother raising a 9 year-old child with no income. To

9

add over $9000 in costs to Plaintiff’s present burden would be manifestly unjust.

10

Secondly, the Court takes into account that this was a disability discrimination case

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

filed by an employee who genuinely believed she was terminated because she suffered

12

from a disability. To require an indigent plaintiff who brought suit over what she thought

13

was a violation of her right to equal protection under the law would have a chilling effect

14

on disability cases and it could deter future litigants from bringing suit. This consideration

15

weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s request to deny costs.

16

Lastly, the fact that Plaintiff litigated her case in good faith further convinces the

17

Court that Plaintiff should not be required to cover Defendant’s costs. Plaintiff brought a

18

meritorious claim, followed all deadlines and procedures, and timely opposed Defendant’s

19

motion for summary judgment. Disagreement over discovery was properly handled and

20

resolved under the direction of a Magistrate Judge.

21
22
23

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and in the interest of justice, the award of costs sought

24

by Defendants is hereby DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 06/26/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
3