Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00239-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBA M. INGRAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

and JUNKO CRAFT,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-00239 JSW

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING

COSTS TO DEFENDANT

This matter arises from a judgment entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant on

January 9, 2006. On February 9, 2006, the Clerk taxed costs in Defendant’s favor in the amount

of $2,411.85. On February 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff

directing her to show cause to the Court why these costs should not be included in the judgment. 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s response received on March 3, 2006, the record in this

case, and relevant legal authority and HEREBY DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, “[e]xcept where express

provision therefore is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs other

than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

otherwise directs.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). While there is “a presumption in favor of awarding

costs to a prevailing party,” Rule 54(d)(1) “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to

award costs.” See Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d

572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing National Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th

Case 3:04-cv-00239-JSW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Cir. 1995)) (hereinafter “AMAE”). A court’s discretion in refusing to award costs is not

unlimited and, if a court elects to deny a prevailing party costs, it must articulate its reasons for

doing so. Id. In this circuit, appropriate reasons to deny costs include, but are not limited to, a

losing party’s limited financial resources, a prevailing party’s misconduct, the extraordinary

nature of a case, and the close and complex issues involved. See, e.g., AMAE, 231 F.3d at 592-

93; National Info Servs., 51 F.3d at 1472. 

The Court has determined that this is an appropriate case to exercise its discretion and

deny costs to Defendants, notwithstanding the fact that they were the prevailing party. The

Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants because it found the motion well-taken

and unopposed. Due to Plaintiff’s lack of funds necessary to secure counsel and the fact that her

original counsel withdrew from the case, Plaintiff was unable to counter the motion. Further,

the issues involved in this case were complex and related to Plaintiff’s pursuit of alleged

violations of employment discrimination. Thus, although Plaintiff ultimately did not prevail on

her claims, the Court declines to include Defendants’ costs in the judgment against her.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00239-JSW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2