Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00025/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00025-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

NO. C 09-0025 RS

ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 08/11/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

INSOOK KIM, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-00025 RS

ORDER PRECLUDING RECOVERY 

OF LITIGATION COSTS 

I. INTRODUCTION & RELEVANT FACTS 

This lawsuit arises from the death of plaintiff’s son, Aziz James. Members of the Police 

Department of the City of Santa Clara (who, along with the City of Santa Clara, comprise the 

defendants) shot and killed James. James’s mother, Insook Kim, filed an action on his behalf 

seeking relief for various alleged constitutional violations. This Court granted summary judgment 

to defendants on all claims. As the prevailing party, the defendants now seek costs in the amount of 

$11,598.14. Kim does not contest the accuracy of the figure requested. She reasons instead that, 

under the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of 

California, this court should decline to award costs here. 231 F.3d 572, 592 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Specifically, Kim contends the case involved issues of substantial importance, the losing party has 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 137 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 5
NO. C 09-0025 RS 

ORDER

2 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

extremely limited financial resources, there is great economic disparity between the plaintiff and the 

defendant, the issues in the case were close and difficult, and the imposition of high costs may have 

a “chilling effect” on future civil rights litigants of limited means. In the alternative, Kim seeks a 

stay of any recovery of costs until resolution of her appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

Defendants contend that this case does not merit atypical cost allocation in any form. 

Kim works as a part-time manager and waitress at a small Chinese eatery in Santa Cruz, 

California. She earns roughly $800 per month. This salary, combined with her husband’s monthly 

disability payments, comprises Kims’ sole income. Kim is fifty-six years old and immigrated to the 

United States from Korea. She lives in a one-bedroom apartment with her husband, Howard 

Columbus James, and their adult son, Howard James III. Their monthly rent is $1,400. Kim also 

represents that she has not and cannot contribute any funds toward her costs of litigation; her 

attorneys have borne all costs. According to the papers, the City of Santa Clara has an annual 

budget of $567,434,893, of which $45,706,014 is allocated to the Police Department. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall 

be allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Rule 

54(d) imposes a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties and the losing party must 

demonstrate why costs should not be awarded. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th 

Cir. 1999). “[I]f a district court wishes to depart from that presumption, it must explain why.” Save 

Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Assoc. of Mexican-Am. 

Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

The Ninth Circuit has said that several factors may justify a deviation from the general rule 

favoring a cost award to the prevailing party. These include a losing party’s limited financial 

resources, see Nat’l Org. for Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1982); 

misconduct on the part of the prevailing party, see National Info. Servs. v. TRW, 51 F.3d 1470, 1472 

(9th Cir. 1995); the importance and complexity of the issues, Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 137 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 5
NO. C 09-0025 RS 

ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

593; the merit of the plaintiff’s case, even if the plaintiff loses, id.; and the chilling effect on future 

civil rights litigants where high costs are imposed, Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1079. 

Here, Kim presents four factors to rebut the presumption that defendants’ requested costs 

should be awarded. She contends the case involves issues of substantial public importance, that she 

has extremely limited financial resources, that there is a great economic disparity between Kim and 

the city and Department, that the issues in her case were difficult and close, and that even though 

she did not ultimately prevail, her case had merit. 

Kim argues her lawsuit serves the substantial public interest of “maintaining public trust” in 

law enforcement by checking police procedures. Lawsuits like hers, she points out, seek to ensure 

that officers do not abuse their authority and power. Defendants agree that Kim’s lawsuit has 

undeniable personal importance, but argue that she overstates the degree of public importance. 

Defendants point to the rather “unique” factual scenario that occurred here—as they characterize the 

case, a “severely intoxicated individual . . . had stabbed and severely wounded two of his best 

friends and a police dog before attacking two police officers with a knife when he was shot”—and 

argue the situation is unlikely to repeat itself. Defendants point out that, in any event, Kim sought 

relief only on behalf of herself and her son and her case did not seek to benefit other plaintiffs 

directly. 

These are not entirely persuasive arguments. While the exact circumstances that unfolded 

here are unlikely to be replicated with great precision, Kim points out that police officers commonly 

break down doors to reach unresponsive individuals. To this end, the public has an interest in 

ensuring that police officers perform such a task within constitutional bounds. Moreover, even a 

specific factual setting can shed light on the limits of police power, which most would agree is of 

substantial public importance. Moreover, courts in this district have reasoned that a claim may still 

serve the public interest even where brought by a single plaintiff. See, e.g., Washburn v. Fagan, No. 

03-00869, 2008 WL 361048 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2008) (denying costs under Mexican-American 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 137 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 5
NO. C 09-0025 RS 

ORDER

4 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Educators in case brought by a single plaintiff alleging excessive force against the San Francisco 

Police Department).1 

Turning to Kim’s ability to pay the cost award, she clearly has extremely limited resources, 

even if she has not definitively demonstrated indigence in her papers. See, e.g., Stanley, 178 F.3d at 

1079-80 (“District courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff and the amount of 

costs in civil rights cases.”); Washburn, 2008 WL 361048 at *2 (declining to award costs where 

plaintiff had demonstrated limited means, even if not actual indigence). What Kim has shown, 

though, is that she earns roughly $800 a month plus some amount from her husband’s monthly 

disability payment. According to the papers, Mr. Kim has not been employed since 1999. The 

Kims do not own a home and pay $1,400 each month to rent an apartment. Even assuming her rent 

and basic needs did not swallow her yearly salary, it would not cover the cost award. Indeed, an 

award of costs here may well render Kim indigent. See Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1079-80 (giving weight 

to the possibility that the plaintiff “would be rendered indigent should she be forced to pay” the 

amount assessed against her); Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., No. 99-06443, 2010 WL 1173079, at *6 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 23, 2010) (“It is not necessary to find that the plaintiffs in question are currently indigent; 

rather, the proper inquiry is whether an award of costs might make them so.”). 

Plainly, there is great economic disparity between Kim’s finances and the $45,706,014 

budget allocated to the Santa Clara Police Department. Economic disparity matters here insofar as 

“imposition of . . . high costs on losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest means may chill civil rights 

litigation.” The cost award sought is not insignificant, at $11,598.14. It is high enough that it would 

actually serve as a disincentive to low-income plaintiffs with constitutional claims. See, e.g., 

NIBCO, 2010 WL 1173079 at *8 (“For a low wage-worker, the threat of a $3,600 cost bill, 

representing approximately 14% of the annual income of [p]laintiffs, is a significant disincentive.”). 

The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that denial of “overwhelming costs” may be 

appropriate when “[t]he issues in the case are close and complex” and the plaintiff’s position was 

 

1

 Of course, the position a defendant advances may also serve the public interest. Here, defendants 

argue they should not be punished for defending constitutional police practices or encouraged to 

limit perfectly upright practices for fear of costly litigation. 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 137 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 5
NO. C 09-0025 RS 

ORDER

5 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

“not without merit.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 593. Such was the case here. 

Even though Kim’s claims ultimately did not survive summary judgment, they were not close to 

frivolous. 

In light of Kim’s finances, the possibility that such an award would chill the claims of lowincome plaintiffs from presenting important constitutional claims, and the fact that Kim’s claim 

presented a substantial question (even though she ultimately did not prevail), a cost award in excess 

of $11,000 would be inappropriate. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude costs will therefore be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: 08/11/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 137 Filed 08/11/10 Page 5 of 5