Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 194

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion for Reimbursement (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

NATHALIE THUY VAN,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR REIMBURSEMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 91
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On January 16, 2015, the Court awarded Defendants Language Line Services, Inc.

19

(“Language Line”) and Language Line Solutions (“Solutions”) $4,704.72 in costs under Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). ECF No. 40 (“Rule 41(d) Order”). Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van

21

subsequently dismissed Solutions from the case and added Defendant Language Line LLC. ECF

22

No. 61. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reimbursement,” which essentially asks the

23

Court to reconsider the Rule 41(d) Order. ECF No. 91. Under the Local Rules of this Court, a

24

party may not move for reconsideration without first seeking leave of the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).

25

Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for leave to file a

26

motion for reconsideration. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the record in this

27

case, and the relevant law, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

2

reconsideration, and VACATES in part the Court’s Rule 41(d) Order.

3

I.

4

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court begins by noting that neither party has provided a complete record of the history

5

of this case, which relates to prior proceedings in Santa Clara County Superior Court. However,

6

this Court provided a full recitation of facts in its Rule 41(d) Order, and the parties do not appear

7

to dispute the following facts from that order. As relevant here, Plaintiff filed an action against

8

Defendant Language Line and former Defendant Solutions in Santa Clara County Superior Court

9

on April 8, 2013. Plaintiff’s state court action also included claims against individual defendants
who were employees of Language Line. See ECF No. 92-1 (“Sept. 2, 2014 Order”). Plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amended her complaint twice, and filed her state court Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on

12

June 26, 2013. In total, Plaintiff alleged 11 claims in the SAC, including claims of racial

13

discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of California’s Fair Housing and

14

Employment Act, violations of California Labor Code, fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to

15

prevent discrimination and harassment, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

16

negligent infliction of emotional distress.

17

On September 11, 2013, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce sustained

18

demurrers without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s negligence, intentional infliction of emotional

19

distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. The Superior Court also sustained

20

demurrers without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s racial discrimination, retaliation and failure to

21

prevent discrimination and harassment claims as to the individual defendants. On September 17,

22

2013, Plaintiff dismissed all defendants without prejudice with the exception of defendant

23

“Language Line Solutions℠,” which had not made an appearance in the case because it is a non-

24

entity service mark. Plaintiff sought and acquired a default judgment only as to Language Line

25

Solutions℠.

26
27
28

On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Pierce. The action was then
reassigned to Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan, who set aside the default
2
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

against the service mark Language Line Solutions on November 27, 2013. Plaintiff then filed a

2

complaint against Judge Kirwan, alleging improper ex parte communications. Unlike Judge

3

Pierce, Judge Kirwan decided to answer Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a verified answer. The

4

Judicial Council assigned Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Ariadne Symons to preside

5

over Plaintiff’s complaint, and Judge Symons concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint against Judge

6

Kirwan was based on “nothing more than speculation and conjecture,” and denied Plaintiff’s

7

motion to disqualify Judge Kirwan.

8

Following Judge Symons order denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Kirwan,

9

Plaintiff’s state court suit was reassigned to Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Patricia
Lucas. Though it is not clear precisely when, Plaintiff reasserted her claims against the other state

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

court defendants, including Language Line, by June 3, 2014. On June 19, 2014, the parties were

12

to appear for a trial setting conference in Plaintiff’s action against Defendants. That same day,

13

Judge Lucas issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) because the counsel for Language Line and

14

the other state court defendants failed to appear at the trial setting conference. In relevant part, the

15

notice of hearing on the OSC ordered the parties to appear at a hearing on July 24, 2014 and:

16
17
18
19

Show cause why the above entitled case should not be dismissed for
failure of Defendants to appear at the Trial Setting Conference on
6/19/14 as required by the Local Rules of the Court.
Defense to Show Cause Why Answer should not be Stricken and
Default be Entered.

20

Defendants filed a response and declaration regarding the OSC, and Judge Lucas discharged the

21

OSC in open court on July 24, 2014.

22

In the interim, Plaintiff apparently refused to stipulate to a protective order at a hearing on

23

July 10, 2014. The Superior Court imposed the standard protective order over Plaintiff’s

24

objections on July 24, 2014. During this same time period, Plaintiff refused to appear at three

25

properly noticed depositions, even after the Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a stay of

26

her deposition. See Sept. 2, 2014 Order. Following Plaintiff’s repeated refusals to appear for her

27

depositions, Language Line and the other state court defendants filed a motion for monetary

28

3
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

sanctions and to compel her appearance, or for terminating sanctions. On August 21, 2014, the

2

Superior Court issued tentative rulings granting the motion for monetary sanctions in the total

3

amount of $8,763. Id. The Superior Court found that Plaintiff’s motion to stay her deposition was

4

“without substantial justification,” and concluded that Plaintiff repeatedly and knowingly failed to

5

obey the Superior Court’s order denying a stay of the deposition. Id. at 3-4. At the same time that

6

the Superior Court issued the tentative rulings on sanctions, the Superior Court also continued

7

Language Line’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s appearance, or in the alternative, for terminating

8

sanctions, to August 29, 2014 and advanced the date of Plaintiff’s motion to quash her deposition

9

to the same date.

10

On August 21, 2014, the same day that the Superior Court issued tentative rulings

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

sanctioning Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed her federal complaint and a motion before this Court “to

12

transfer case from state court.” ECF Nos. 1, 4. On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff dismissed her state

13

court action without prejudice, three days prior to the scheduled hearing on terminating sanctions.

14

The Superior Court declined to hold the hearing on terminating sanctions because, although

15

Plaintiff had filed “seriatim dismissals without prejudice in this matter in an attempt to avoid a

16

hearing on the above motion,” Plaintiff was entitled to voluntarily dismiss her case without

17

prejudice under California law.

18

Although the Superior Court declined to impose terminating sanctions, the Superior Court

19

affirmed its tentative rulings ordering monetary sanctions against Plaintiff on September 2, 2014.

20

See Sept. 2, 2014 Order, at 2-4. The Superior Court also entered judgment in favor of Language

21

Line and the other state court defendants in an order dated September 23, 2014, but filed on

22

September 30, 2014. See ECF No. 92-2 (“September 23, 2014 Order”). In addition to the $8,763

23

in sanctions awarded in the September 2, 2014 Order, the Superior Court judgment included

24

“costs of suit as the prevailing party under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 in the

25

sum of $4,760.” Id. In total, the Superior Court awarded Language Line and the other state court

26

defendants $13,523.

27
28

On September 15, 2014, before judgment was entered on September 23, 2014 in the state
4
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

court proceeding, Language Line and Solutions filed a motion for costs under Rule 41(d) in this

2

Court. ECF No. 10. On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff opposed the motion for costs, without

3

discussing the Superior Court’s recently-filed September 23, 2014 Order. ECF No. 16. In fact,

4

Plaintiff’s opposition stated that the Superior Court’s sanctions award was “not reduced to

5

judgment.” Id. at 2. Given that the September 23, 2014 Order was not filed until September 30,

6

2014, Plaintiff may not have been aware of the September 23, 2014 Order on October 1, 2014,

7

when Plaintiff filed her opposition. On October 14, 2014, Language Line and Solutions replied

8

and requested judicial notice of the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order. ECF No. 21. On

9

January 16, 2015, the Court concluded that an award of costs was appropriate given Plaintiff’s

10

apparent forum shopping and vexatious litigation tactics, and granted the motion for costs. See

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Rule 41(d) Order. As discussed in greater detail below, the Court awarded Language Line and

12

Solutions a total sum of $4,704.72. The Court also stayed the case until Plaintiff paid the costs

13

award, which Plaintiff did on February 6, 2015. ECF No. 41.
On March 2, 2015, Language Line obtained a wage garnishment order in the amount of

14
15

$13,665.30 in order to execute the judgment from the Superior Court proceeding.1 ECF No. 92-4.

16

Language Line presented the wage garnishment order to Plaintiff’s employer on March 4, 2015.

17

Id. According to Plaintiff, Language Line fully executed the Superior Court’s judgment. See ECF

18

No. 91-5 to -6.
Soon after, on March 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to sanction Language Line and

19
20

Solutions. ECF No. 44. According to Plaintiff, Language Line and Solutions acted in bad faith by

21

collecting on both the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order and this Court’s Rule 41(d)

22

Order. Id. At the case management conference on April 1, 2015, the Court indicated that

23

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions did not appear meritorious because the Court’s Rule 41(d) Order

24

did not overlap with the monetary sanctions awarded by the Superior Court. ECF No. 54. On

25
26
27
28

1

The parties do not explain why the wage garnishment order is for $13,665.30, while the Superior
Court judgment awarded only $13,523. However, the parties do not dispute that the wage
garnishment order was obtained to satisfy the Superior Court judgment.
5
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

March 24, 2015, Plaintiff retained counsel, ECF No. 50, who withdrew the motion for sanctions

2

on April 10, 2015, ECF No. 58. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff substituted herself as counsel. ECF

3

No. 69. Three days later, on July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for sanctions, which

4

accused Language Line and Language Line LLC of falsifying evidence and committing fraud on

5

the court. ECF No. 70. The Court denied the second motion for sanctions on August 27, 2015

6

after finding that there was no evidence that any defendant acted improperly. ECF No. 105.
While the second motion for sanctions was pending, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

7
8

reimbursement. ECF No. 91 (“Mot.”). Language Line and Language Line LLC opposed

9

Plaintiff’s motion on August 31, 2015.2 ECF No. 112 (“Opp.”). Plaintiff replied on September 4,
2015. ECF No. 121.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states: “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the

12
13

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before

14

a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any

15

interlocutory order. . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining

16

leave of Court to file the motion.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides three grounds for

17

reconsideration of an interlocutory order:

18

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not
know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

19
20
21

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or

22

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The parties do not address the change in defendants in the amended complaint, which dismissed
Solutions and added Language Line LLC. See ECF No. 61 (amended complaint). Plaintiff cannot
seek “reimbursement” from Language Line LLC, who was not a party when this Court issued the
Rule 41(d) Order and who did not receive any costs award. Accordingly, when analyzing
Plaintiff’s motion below the Court refers only to Language Line.
6
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

Rule 7-9(c) further requires that “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may

2

repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to

3

the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Whether to grant leave

4

to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v.

5

Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 Fed. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014).

6

III.

7

DISCUSSION
When Language Line filed the motion for Rule 41(d) costs in this Court on September 15,

8

2014, the Superior Court had already awarded $8,763 in sanctions against Plaintiff for discovery

9

abuse. See Sept. 2, 2014 Order. However, the Superior Court did not enter judgment or award
costs to Language Line until September 23, 2014, and the September 23, 2014 Order was not filed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

until September 30, 2014. See Sept. 23, 2014 Order. Plaintiff had to file her opposition to

12

Language Line’s motion for Rule 41(d) costs the next day, on October 1, 2014. Plaintiff’s

13

opposition addresses the September 2, 2014 sanctions award and states that the award had not

14

been reduced to judgment. ECF No. 16, at 2. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff was unaware of the

15

September 23, 2014 Order when Plaintiff opposed Language Line’s motion for Rule 41(d) costs

16

on October 1, 2014. When Language Line replied on October 14, 2014, Language Line informed

17

the Court of the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order. ECF No. 21. The Court granted

18

Language Line’s motion for Rule 41(d) costs. See Rule 41(d) Order.

19

Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider the amount of the costs awarded in the Rule

20

41(d) Order because, according to Plaintiff, the Superior Court previously awarded the same costs

21

in its September 23, 2014 Order. Mot. at 2. Language Line opposes Plaintiff’s request for

22

reconsideration, and contends that the Court properly awarded Language Line $4,704.72 under

23

Rule 41(d).

24

Rule 41(d) provides: “If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an

25

action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court: (1) may order

26

the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and (2) may stay the proceedings

27

until the plaintiff has complied.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). An award of reasonable costs under Rule

28

7
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

41(d) serves the dual purposes of deterring forum shopping and vexatious litigation, as well as

2

compensating a party for “the preparation of work product rendered useless by the dismissal of

3

[plaintiff’s previous action].” Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382, 1388 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

4

(quoting Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l

5

Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992) (Rule 41(d)’s purpose is to “serve as a deterrent to forum

6

shopping and vexatious litigation”). A party’s request for costs must be individually itemized and

7

provide a basis for the Court to determine whether the expenses were reasonably incurred and

8

whether they will be useful to the party in the second action. Esquivel, 913 F. Supp. at 1388; see

9

also Koch, 8 F.3d at 552; Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Grp., Inc., No. 07-00007DAE-KSC,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2007 WL 2320672, at *7 (D. Haw. Aug. 10, 2007).
In the Court’s Rule 41(d) Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $4,704.72 in costs.

12

First, the Court found that “[t]here is no dispute that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state court

13

action, in which she raised the same claims as she alleges in the instant litigation.” See Rule 41(d)

14

Order, at 7-8. Second, the Court concluded that an award of costs was appropriate because “the

15

circumstances of Plaintiff’s ‘transfer’ of her state court action to federal court are indicative of the

16

type of forum shopping that Rule 41(d) aims to prevent.” Id. at 8-9. The Court also found that

17

“Plaintiff’s discovery abuses and refusal to comply with the [an order of the Superior Court] are

18

consistent with Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has engaged in vexatious litigation tactics.”

19

Id. at 9. Third, the Court determined that $4,704.72 was a reasonable award of costs. Id. at 10-13.

20

The Court also found that attorney’s fees were not “costs” under Rule 41(d). Id. at 13-14.

21

In order to arrive at the amount of costs, the Court looked to two sources proffered by

22

Language Line. First, the Court examined Language Line’s September 10, 2014 “Memorandum

23

of Costs” filed in the Superior Court, which itemized $3,915 in filing fees, $845 in deposition

24

costs, and $8,763 in sanctions ($13,523 total). Id. at 11. The Court awarded $3,915 in filing fees

25

as costs reasonably expended in the state court litigation that would not be useful to Language

26

Line in the instant litigation. Id. The Court also awarded $225 in deposition fees as reasonably

27

incurred, and declined to award the remaining $620 in deposition fees that Language Line

28

8
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

requested for hotel stays, meals, and travel for a single day of depositions. Id. Additionally, the

2

Court declined to award the $8,763 in monetary sanctions imposed by the Superior Court, because

3

the Court could not determine whether the sanctions reflected reasonably incurred costs that would

4

not be useful to Language Line in the present action. Id. at 11-12.
Second, the Court examined a list of additional costs for postage, court reporter fees,

5

messenger service fees for filing, overnight delivery service charges, and travel costs, totaling

7

$5,968.86. Id. at 10. The Court declined to award the $4,739.42 in requested travel and meal

8

costs because Language Line failed to explain why such costs were reasonably necessary. Id. at

9

13. The Court concluded that a lack of specificity in Language Line’s request for the remaining

10

costs for postage, court reporter fees, and service fees called for a 50% reduction in the requested

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

costs. Accordingly, the Court awarded $564.72 in additional costs. Id. at 12. Although the

12

Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order was raised in Language Line’s reply brief, the Court’s

13

Rule 41(d) Order did not mention the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order. See generally

14

id.

15

Plaintiff does not challenge this Court’s findings that (1) the instant lawsuit is virtually

16

identical to the previously-dismissed state court lawsuit; and (2) Plaintiff’s forum shopping and

17

vexatious behavior warrant an award of reasonable costs under Rule 41(d). Plaintiff moves for

18

reconsideration only of the amount of costs awarded. See generally Mot. Plaintiff argues that the

19

Superior Court already awarded costs to Language Line in the September 23, 2014 Order, and thus

20

Language Line unfairly “double dipped” by collecting on the same costs twice. Id. at 2. Having

21

carefully considered Plaintiff’s arguments for reconsideration, the Court concludes that the

22

Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order presented material facts that the Court should have

23

considered when determining the appropriate amount of costs to award under Rule 41(d). See Civ.

24

L.R. 7-9(b)(3).

25

Having now reviewed both the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order and this

26

Court’s Rule 41(d) Order, it is apparent that a portion of this Court’s Rule 41(d) Order duplicated

27

some of the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order. In the September 23, 2014 Order, the

28

9
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

Superior Court awarded $8,763 in sanctions and the “costs of suit as the prevailing party under

2

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 in the sum of $4,760.” September 23, 2014

3

Order. To reach the cost determination, the Superior Court explicitly considered the

4

“Memorandum of Costs filed herein on September 10, 2014.” Id. It appears that the Superior

5

Court awarded all of the costs itemized in the Memorandum of Costs: $3,915 in filing and motion

6

fees, $845 in deposition fees (totaling $4,760, the amount of costs awarded), and $8,763 in

7

sanctions. Id. Accordingly, this Court’s award of $3,915 in filing fees and $225 in deposition fees

8

duplicated costs already awarded by the Superior Court. However, the Court’s award of $564.72

9

for further costs is not duplicative. The Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order only ordered
costs itemized in the Memorandum of Costs, and the $564.72 awarded by this Court was not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

itemized in the Memorandum of Costs.

12

In opposition, Language Line now tries to characterize the Superior Court’s September 23,

13

2014 Order as solely ordering sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery abuse. See Opp. at 3. However,

14

it is clear from the September 23, 2014 Order that the Superior Court ordered not just sanctions,

15

but also “costs of suit as the prevailing party.” Sept. 23, 2014 Order.

16

Language Line also argues that this Court previously ruled that the costs were not

17

duplicative when the Court discussed Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions with Plaintiff’s newly-

18

hired counsel. Opp. at 5-7. As described above, Plaintiff filed her first motion for sanctions on

19

March 13, 2015, and argued that Language Line acted in bad faith and to harass Plaintiff by

20

collecting on both the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order and the Court’s Rule 41(d)

21

Order. ECF No. 44. At the April 1, 2015 case management conference, this Court noted that “My

22

understanding is that Ms. Van . . . is saying that any effort by the defendants to seek a writ of

23

execution to levy Ms. Van’s accounts in order . . . for defendants to collect on the sanctions order

24

that Judge Lucas issued in Superior Court, that that was sanctionable.” ECF No. 54; see also ECF

25

No. 60 (transcript). The Court indicated that the Court did not believe that the Rule 41(d) Order

26

was duplicative of the Superior Court’s sanctions order, and thus Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

27

did not appear meritorious. Id.

28

10
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

The Court’s comments at the case management conference were not directed to the

1
2

Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order, which the Court did not consider in its Rule 41(d)

3

Order. Instead, the Court spoke to the Superior Court’s September 2, 2014 Order awarding $8,763

4

in sanctions. The Court believed then—and finds now—that the Rule 41(d) Order was not

5

duplicative of the Superior Court’s September 2, 2014 Order awarding sanctions. In the Rule

6

41(d) Order, the Court considered the Superior Court’s September 2, 2014 sanctions award, and

7

declined to award any of the $8,763 sanctions as costs under Rule 41(d). See Rule 41(d) Order, at

8

11-12. Thus, the Rule 41(d) Order did not award costs duplicative of the Superior Court’s

9

September 2, 2014 Order. However, that finding does not determine whether the Rule 41(d) Order
awarded costs duplicative of the Superior Court’s September 23, 2014 Order. As discussed, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court finds that the Rule 41(d) Order did order some duplicative costs.
Rule 41(d) does not explicitly prohibit double recovery of costs. However, the Court

12
13

concludes that such an award would be inappropriate in this case. Awarding Language Line costs

14

that have already been awarded in a state court judgment does not “compensate” Language Line

15

for costs that were “reasonably incurred” in the state court proceeding. See Esquivel, 913 F. Supp.

16

at 1391-92. Rather, such double recovery provides Language Line a windfall, effectively

17

permitting Language Line to cover the costs of the previous and current litigation, or,

18

alternatively, to recover a sanction in the name of a costs award. Cf. White v. Telelect, Inc., 109

19

F.R.D. 655, 656-57 (S.D. Miss. 1986) (concluding that Rule 41(d) could not be applied in a

20

second action that was pending at the time of the voluntary dismissal of the first action, because

21

Rule 41(a)(2) costs would have been an option in the first action). Consequently, the Court

22

concludes that the $3,915 in filing fees and $225 in deposition costs, duplicative of the costs

23

awarded by the Superior Court, do not reflect reasonably incurred costs that would not be useful to

24

Language Line in the present action. Thus, the Court declines to award such costs under Rule

25

41(d).

26
27
28

The Court confirms the previous award of $564.72, which is not duplicative of costs
ordered by the Superior Court. In the Rule 41(d) Order, the Court found that the $564.72 award
11
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

1

was reasonable based on a list of itemized costs submitted by Language Line. See Rule 41(d)

2

Order, at 10-13. Additionally, the Court found that such costs were warranted under Rule 41(d)

3

due to Plaintiff’s forum shopping and vexatious behavior in filing the instant lawsuit after seriatim

4

dismissals of a virtually identical lawsuit in state court. Id. at 7-9. The Court affirms that these

5

costs were properly awarded under Rule 41(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

6

motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED

7

in part. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3).

8

IV.

9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

is GRANTED. The Court VACATES its January 16, 2015 Rule 41(d) Order to the extent that the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

order awarded costs based on the September 10, 2014 Memorandum of Costs. The remainder of

12

the Rule 41(d) Order, which concludes that an award of costs under Rule 41(d) is appropriate and

13

awards Language Line $564.72 in costs, remains effective. Within thirty (30) days from the date

14

that this Order is filed, Language Line is ORDERED to reimburse Plaintiff $4,140 for costs

15

improperly awarded.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: December 14, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT