Van et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, inc. et al

Filing 475

ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 465 motion for further consideration of order re bill of costs (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14

NATHALIE THUY VAN,
Plaintiff,

15
v.

16
17

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:08-CV-05296 PSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING BILL OF COSTS
(Re: Docket No. 465)

On January 20, 2012, the court issued an order for payment of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.’s (“Wal-Mart”) bill of costs against Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van (“Van”) in the amount of
$4,684.67.1 In its order, the court noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 creates a presumption in favor of the

22
23

prevailing party to collect costs other than attorneys’ fees.2 Although the district court retains

24
1

25

See Docket No. 464 (Order Granting Bill of Costs and Denying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees).

2

26
27
28

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.”). See also
Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (“By its
terms, [Rule 54(d)(1)] creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but
vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.”) (citing National Info. Servs., Inc. v.
TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1995)).
ORDER, page 1

1

discretion to refuse to award costs based upon “specific reasons,” such as the limited financial

2

resources of the losing party or misconduct by the prevailing party,3 costs generally are awarded

3

“as a matter of course.” Moreover, the district court must give reasons for denying costs, but need

4

not explain its reasons for awarding costs consistent with Rule 54.4 The party objecting to the

5

assignment of costs bears the burden of overcoming the presumption and establishing why the

6

prevailing party is not so entitled.5 After reviewing the submissions of both parties, the court found

7
8

that Van did not overcome the presumption under Rule 54(d)(1) and awarded costs to Wal-Mart.
Van now moves for administrative leave for a motion for further consideration with regard

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to the court’s order on the bill of costs.6 Van’s motion, however, does not set forth any basis for

11

“further consideration” of the court’s previous order.7 Instead, Van makes the unorthodox request

12

that “the Court further order Defendant Wal-Mart to take over ownership of Plaintiff’s primary

13
14

residence for the amount of the judgment $4,684.67. In taking over the ownership of the property,
Defendant Wal-Mart is to properly pay off the two existing mortgage loans of the property.”8 Van

15
16

states that the basis for this request is her inability to otherwise satisfy the amount owed. Van offers

17

evidence of her bank account balances to demonstrate her inability to pay the bill of costs.9 Wal-

18

Mart opposes the motion on the grounds that Van may not now seek to reargue new facts or issues

19

that were not presented to the court earlier, and that Van cites no authority in support of her request

20

for assignment of the mortgages.

21
3

See Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators at 591-592 (citations omitted).

4

See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

22
23
5

24

See id. at 944-945 (citing Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir.
1999)).

25

6

See Docket No. 465 (Pl.’s Admin. Leave for Mot. for Further Consideration).

26

7

See Civ. L.R. 7-9 (setting forth the requirements for seeking a motion for reconsideration).

27

8

See id. at 2.

28

9

See Docket No. 467 (Van Decl.), Exs. 5-11.
ORDER, page 2

Construing Van’s motion as a motion for leave to seek reconsideration of an earlier court

1
2

order, Van has not demonstrated a material difference in fact or law or the emergence of new

3

material facts or a change in law that would warrant reconsideration, or a manifest failure by the

4

Court to consider the facts or law presented.10 Nor is the court aware of any basis or authority on

5

which it may carry out Van’s request for an order assigning her mortgages to Wal-Mart.

6

Accordingly, Van’s motion for leave for further consideration is hereby DENIED.

7
8

Dated: 2/7/2012
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

10

See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
ORDER, page 3