Valdovinos v. Anna Maria Manor, LLC

Filing 71

ORDER: Denying Motion for Attorney Fees 67 ; Granting Bill of Costs. 69 . Defendant is awarded $1,257.88. Signed on 5/22/2013 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
PATRICIA VALDOVINOS,
No. 1:12-cv-824-PA
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.

ANNA MARIA MANOR, LLC,
Defendant.
PANNER, J.

In this employment discrimination action, the jury found
for defendant Anna Maria Manor, LLC.

Based on the jury

verdict, this court issued a judgment dismissing the claims of
plaintiff Patricia Valdovinos.
Defendant now moves for an award of costs and attorney's
fees.

I deny the motion for attorney's fees and grant the

motion for costs.
DISCUSSION
I.

Defendant Is Not Entitled to Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff brought claims under Title VII and under state
1 - ORDER

law.

Defendant now seeks $50,000 in attorney's fees under

Title VII,

42 U.S.C.

§

2000e-5(k).

This court has discretion in determining whether to award
attorney's fees under Title VII.
13 F.3d 285, 287

EEOC v. Bruno's Restaurant,

(9th Cir. 1993).

The court may award fees to

a prevailing defendant "'upon a finding that the plaintiff's
action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even
though not brought in subjective bad faith.'"
.

l

Id.

(quoting

Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978));
see also Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court,
974-75 (9th Cir. 2011).

631 F.3d 963,

The Supreme Court has cautioned that

courts should not conclude that simply because a plaintiff
ultimately lost a civil rights claim, the claim must have been
without foundation.

Awarding fees based on hindsight "could

discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a
prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success."
Christianburg Garment, 434 U.S. at 422.
Here, I denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
At trial, I concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claim should
go to the jury . . Plaintiff's Title VII claim was not frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation.

I deny defendant's motion

for attorney's fees under Title VII.
II.

Defendant's Bill of Costs

The prevailing party is entitled to costs "unless the
court otherwise directs."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).

The court

has broad discretion to allow a prevailing party to recoup
costs of litigation, but the court may not tax costs beyond
those authorized by 28 U.S.C.
2 - ORDER

§

1920.

See Frederick v. City of

Portland, 162 F.R.D. 139, 142 (D. Or. 1995).
Here, defendant's requested costs 1 are authorized by§
1920.

I award defendant its requested costs.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for an award of attorney's fees
is denied.

(#67)

Defendant's bill of costs (#69) is granted and

defendant is awarded $1,257.88.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~~day of May,

2013.

~£BL71!~
6WENM. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The conclusion of defendant's memorandum requests $1,156.09 in
costs, apparently because of a failure to include $101.79 in
photocopy costs for the BOLl and EEOC files.
3 - ORDER