Warwick v. University of the Pacific et al

Filing 215

ORDER by Judge Wilken denying 191 Motion to Excuse Costs (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2010)

Warwick v. University of the Pacific et al

Doc. 215

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has filed a motion opposing costs taxed on her by the Clerk of the Court following entry of judgment in the action. Docket No. 191. Defendants University of the Pacific (UOP) and v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; PATRICIA MILLER; DAVID ROMERO; DOES TWO THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, inclusive, Defendants. / JOANNE WARWICK, Plaintiff, No. C 08-03904 CW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OPPOSE COSTS (Docket No. 191) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) oppose Plaintiff's motion. Having considered all of the parties'

submissions, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff served as an attorney under an independent contract with the California Parole Advocacy Program (CalPap). CalPap terminated her contract. In 2005,

Subsequently, Plaintiff sued the Plaintiff asserted the

UOP, the CDCR, and numerous individuals.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

following claims: (1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Negligent Supervision; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (6) Negligence; and (7) Declaratory Relief. On July 6, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment and awarded costs in Defendants' favor. Docket No. 173. On August 11,

2010, the Clerk taxed costs in the amount of $7,435.10 for UOP, and $11,589.65 for CDCR. opposing the costs. On August 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion Docket No. 191. Defendant CDCR has indicated Opp. Mot. at 5.

that it is amenable to staggered payments. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 54(d) creates a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties; the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded. 945 (2003). Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944The Ninth Circuit requires the Court to consider the

plaintiff's limited financial resources, and the chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs, before rejecting a losing civil rights plaintiff's motion to deny costs. Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). "Although a district court must `specify reasons'

for its refusal to tax costs to the losing party . . . [the Ninth Circuit has] never held that a district court must specify reasons for its decision to abide the presumption and tax costs to the losing party." Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DISCUSSION Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing to justify departure from the presumption awarding costs to prevailing parties. Plaintiff's submissions do not adequately support her

contention that she lacks the ability to pay costs over time. Rather, Plaintiff is an attorney currently licensed to practice in California. bar exams. She has also passed the Michigan and Illinois state Plaintiff has indicated that she has employment

contacts with at least one elected official who apparently invited her to work for him, a legal aid organization, and a restaurant. Plaintiff continues to pursue her case, taking on expenses to file her appeal and request transcripts. The record demonstrates that

Plaintiff has resources at her disposal that set her apart from other low-income litigants who seek to be excused from costs. Furthermore, Plaintiff's case did not raise civil rights issues of sufficient novelty, weight and merit that costs should be excused. The pressing legal issues that Plaintiff identifies,

namely the due process rights of parolees, were not the paramount concerns in the legal claims she plead against Defendants. Plaintiff's case is different from cases where courts have denied the imposition of costs on unsuccessful plaintiffs. See e.g.,

National Org. For Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming denial of costs to defendants where plaintiffs had limited resources and lawsuit alleged wide-scale racial discrimination); Assoc. Of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of $216,443.67 in costs to prevailing defendants where the plaintiffs 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pursued a class action challenging teacher examination).

The Court

is not persuaded that the award of costs in this case will chill future civil rights litigants. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing to overcome the presumption awarding costs to the prevailing Defendants, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

Dated: 12/17/2010

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

4