Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03429/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03429-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adeshina O. Oshilaja, Rebecca )

S. Indermaur, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 05-3429-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Ms. Yvonne Watterson; Gateway )

Community High School; )

Gateway Community College; )

Maricopa County Community )

College District, )

)

Defendants. )

In accordance with this court’s order, the Clerk of the Court

entered a Taxation of Costs Order in the amount of $3,302.10 (doc.

39). Plaintiffs were to pay those costs to defendants because the

latter had prevailed in this action. See Oshilaja v. Watterson,

2007 WL 2903029 (D.Ariz. Sept. 30, 2007). Currently pending before

the court is a “Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs

Order” by plaintiffs pro se, Adeshina O. Oshilaja and Rebecca S.

Indermaur (doc. 40). Claiming severe financial hardship if

plaintiffs are required to pay those taxable costs, they are 

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 42 Filed 06/02/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

seeking to have the court “forgive[] . . . th[a]t debt.” Id. at 2. 

Defendants respond that plaintiffs’ motion is moot because they

“have not attempted to recover their costs from plaintiffs despite

the award, and they have no intention to do so in the future.” 

Resp. (doc. 41) at 1:24-26.

Generally a case is “moot when the issues presented are no

longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in

the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120

S.Ct. 1382, 1390, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). A case becomes moot if “subsequent events

[make] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior

could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth,

Inc. V. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170, 129 

S.Ct. 693, 698, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (citation omitted). 

In the present case, at this juncture no allegedly wrongful

behavior is at issue. Nonetheless, because subsequent events, in

the form of defendants’ assurances upon which the court relies,

have made it “absolutely clear” that they will not be seeking

previously awarded taxable costs from plaintiffs, the court DENIES

as moot plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the taxation

order (doc. 40). There is no longer a live controversy in this

case as to the taxable costs. Accordingly, plaintiffs will not be

required to pay defendants’ costs despite the prior Taxation of

Costs Order. 

Thus, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

. . . 

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 42 Filed 06/02/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

reconsideration (doc. 40) is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2009.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiffs pro se

Case 2:05-cv-03429-RCB Document 42 Filed 06/02/09 Page 3 of 3