Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00931/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00931-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346bc Breach of Contract

---

1 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAQUEL SABRINA MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 13-cv-00931-DHB 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS 

[ECF No. 128] 

 

 On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff Raquel Sabrina Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to ReTax Costs. (ECF No. 128.) On June 23, 2016, Defendant United States of America 

(“Defendant”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 130.) On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

reply. (ECF No. 131.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and supporting exhibits, 

the Court hereby awards costs to Defendant in the amount of $4,206.30. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Defendant under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act. (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2016, following a four day bench trial, 

judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. (ECF No. 122.) On May 13, 2016, Defendant 

filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $4,312.30, and on May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an 

objection to the Bill of Costs. (ECF Nos. 123, 125.) The Clerk of Court held a telephonic 

Bill of Costs hearing on June 2, 2016 and issued an Order Taxing Costs in the amount of 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 7
2 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

$4,264.30. (ECF No. 127.) Plaintiff contends that the Order Taxing Costs should be 

vacated, or in the alternative, reduced by the amount of $319.80. (ECF No. 128 at 10.) 

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues the Court should use its discretion to decline to award Defendant 

costs because Plaintiff will suffer severe financial hardship if costs are imposed. 

Specifically, Plaintiff represents that she is a low paid employee of the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA), and that her current monthly income only exceeds her monthly 

expenses by approximately $37.70 per month. (Id. at 3.) In addition, Plaintiff indicates 

that she is a single mother who supports her child who is currently attending college, and 

that Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy during the pendency of the underlying litigation. (Id.) 

Plaintiff also claims Defendant is in a “better position to bear the burden of its own costs, 

as Defendant is the federal government of a first world nation.” (Id.) Plaintiff further 

contends Defendant has failed to properly itemize the costs involved and failed to provide 

the Court with sufficient details to assess the reasonableness of the amounts claimed. (Id.

at 6.) 

 Defendant counters that it is entitled to recover its costs because this case is not 

extraordinary and that a severe injustice will not result if Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs. 

(ECF No. 130 at 8.) Defendant also provides supplemental information addressing the 

individual costs challenged by Plaintiff. (Id. at 13-15.) 

A. The Court’s Discretionary Authority to Award Costs 

 Pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is presumed that a 

prevailing party will recover its costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); Quan v. Computer 

Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Fifth 

Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. 2459 (2014). The losing party bears the burden 

of showing “why costs should not be awarded.” Quan, 623 F.3d at 888 (quoting Save our 

Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003)). Proper grounds for denying 

costs include: (1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the 

prevailing party; (3) the chilling effect of imposing high costs of civil rights litigants; (4) 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 7
3 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

whether the issues in the case were close and difficult; (5) whether the prevailing party’s 

recovery was nominal or partial; (6) whether the losing party litigated in good faith; and 

(7) whether the case presented a landmark issue of national importance. Id. at 888-89. 

It is undisputed that Defendant was the prevailing party in this action, as Judgment 

was entered on May 9, 2016, after the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to prove 

Defendant was negligent by a preponderance of the evidence. (ECF Nos. 121, 122.) 

Therefore, it is presumed Defendant is entitled to recover costs, and Plaintiff bears the 

burden of showing why costs should not be awarded. For the reasons discussed below, 

looking at each of the relevant factors individually, the Court finds Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated this case represents one of the “rare occasion[s] where severe injustice will 

result from an award of costs (such as the injustice that would result from an indigent 

plaintiff’s being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars of her alleged oppressor’s legal 

costs).” Save our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. 

1. The Losing Party’s Financial Resources 

The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s financial situation; however, based on the 

information provided in her submitted declaration, she is not indigent. Plaintiff has a full 

time job at the VA, and she also receives benefits as a disabled Veteran. She has a total 

net income of approximately $4,449.00 per month. (ECF No. 128-1 at 2).1

 Although 

Plaintiff claims that her monthly income barely covers her monthly expenses, she is able 

to make charitable contributions on a monthly basis. (Id.) It is commendable that Plaintiff 

is assisting her adult daughter with college expenses. However, it does appear that Plaintiff 

has discretionary income. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s financial 

circumstances, this factor does not support a denial of costs, particularly since it does 

appear that Plaintiff has sufficient assets to make payments over time. See Ardalan v. 

                                                                

1

 The Court is unable to ascertain whether Plaintiff has any assets in investment, 

savings, or checking accounts, as this information was not provided in the submitted 

financial declaration. 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 7
4 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

Monterey Inst. of Int’l Studies, No. C 03-01075 JFPVT, 2004 WL 2047593, at *2-4 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 14, 2004). 

2. Misconduct by the Prevailing Party 

There is no allegation by Plaintiff that Defendant engaged in misconduct or 

impropriety in the litigation of this case. This case was professionally litigated by both 

parties, and the Court was sincerely impressed with the high caliber of representation on 

both sides of the aisle. This factor favors imposition of a cost award. 

3. The Chilling Effect of Imposing High Costs of Civil Rights Litigants 

The underlying action was not a civil rights case, as the sole cause of action was 

negligence based on a slip and fall incident at a VA hospital. The amount of costs are not 

unusually high or extraordinary for a case that was litigated for a period of more than three 

years. See Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, No. C-05001597 EDL, 2009 WL 

2392094 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009) (comparing cases with small cost awards under $9,000 

and large cost awards ranging from $16,268.71 to $485,159.49). This factor favors the 

imposition of a cost award. 

4. Whether the Issues in the Case Were Close and Difficult 

Plaintiff contends that because her case was meritorious that she should be relieved 

from an award of costs. (ECF No. 128 at 4.) It is true that the Court found that the evidence 

supported her contention that she slipped and fell in a puddle of Isagel liquid. However, 

this factual finding was only one step towards meeting Plaintiff’s burden in establishing 

liability. As stated in the Court’s Memorandum of Decision, Plaintiff failed to prove that 

Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that allegedly 

caused her injury. (ECF No. 121 at 8-13.) As previously held by the Court, there was no 

evidence introduced depicting how, when, or who spilled the Isagel. (Id.) The facts of the 

underlying case were fairly straightforward, and the legal issues were not particularly 

difficult or complex. This factor favors the imposition of a cost award. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 4 of 7
5 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

5. Whether the Prevailing Party’s Recovery was Nominal or Partial 

Defendant prevailed because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof. There was 

no partial recovery for Plaintiff based on comparative negligence, contributory negligence, 

or any other legal theory. This factor favors the imposition of a cost award. 

6. Whether the Losing Party Litigated in Good Faith 

The Court does find that Plaintiff litigated this case in good faith. There were factual 

issues that needed to be determined by a trier of fact. This factor favors the Court utilizing 

its discretion in denying a cost award. 

7. Whether the Case Presented a Landmark Issue of National Importance 

Plaintiff contends that this case is particularly significant because, “in a broader 

context, this case is about ensuring the medical needs of our Nation’s veterans, in a safe 

environment.” (ECF No. 128 at 4.) The Court certainly recognizes the importance of 

keeping our veterans safe. However, this case did not address specific health care issues 

or allegations of delayed medical treatment, which may be defined as important national 

issues. This case involved an isolated incident at the VA, and did not impact or affect 

nationwide policy or federal decision making. Simply stated, the underlying matter was 

not “an extraordinary, and extraordinarily important, case.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. 

Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). This factor favors 

the imposition of a cost award. 

Given the foregoing, the Court finds that it would not be inequitable or improper to 

award costs. 

B. Adequacy of Defendant’s Cost Bill 

Plaintiff challenges the cost award based on the fact that numerous costs were not 

reasonable and necessary, and that Defendant failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 

54.1(b)(6)(c), which states: 

The party seeking recovery must present documentary evidence in the form 

of affidavits describing the documents copied, to whom they were provided, 

the number of pages copied, and the cost per page, and the use of or intended 

purpose for the items copied. If documents were provided only to the party 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 5 of 7
6 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

seeking recovery, that party must specify the purpose of acquisition and 

photocopying of the documents served. In the absence of a specific showing, 

recovery must be denied. 

Civ. L.R. 54.1(b)(6)(c). 

Plaintiff objects to the subpoena fees awarded to Defendant for the service of 

subpoenas to the VA Hospital, Steven Alsing, MD, and attorney Craig Dwyer. (ECF No. 

128 at 6.) The Court finds that the service of the subpoenas to the VA Hospital and Dr. 

Alsing was reasonable and necessary, as it was appropriate for Defendant to subpoena 

medical records and Dr. Alsing was a potential witness. However, Defendant has not 

provided justification for serving attorney Dwyer twice, once on January 12, 2016 ($58.00) 

and again on February 8, 2016 ($58.00). (ECF No. 123 at 4.) The Court acknowledges 

that attorney Dwyer was a trial witness, and therefore the issuance of a subpoena was 

necessary, but based on a lack of justification for the two separate subpoena costs, the Court 

will adjust the costs award by deducting the sum of one of the service costs in the amount 

of $58.00. 

 Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s Claim for Exemplification and Copies of Papers 

should be denied for various reasons, including failure to demonstrate which copies were 

required to be provided to the Court and to opposing counsel, as well as various issues 

concerning photographs. (ECF No. 128 at 7-9.) The stated requirements in Civil Local 

Rule 54.1 for the submission of a Bill of Costs requires a more particularized description 

of the expended costs than is required under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The purpose of the local rule’s greater specificity is to ensure that opposing 

counsel and the Court have a clear understanding of the nature and purpose of the claimed 

costs. Plaintiff states that Defendant’s Bill of Costs is incomplete because the motion did 

not explain to whom the duplicated documents were provided, nor did the original 

submission state the use of, or the intended purpose of, the items copied. (Id.) However, 

Defendant’s Attachment to Bill of Costs (Exhibit C) does contain a categorical listing of 

each exhibit copied and the amount of the respective copy costs for each exhibit. (ECF 

No. 123 at 21-24). In regard to these exhibits, four copies were made, which is consistent 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 6 of 7
7 

13-cv-00931-DHB 

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

with the Court’s order that the Court was to be provided with two copies of the exhibit 

binders, and a copy needed to be provided to opposing counsel. It is also reasonable that 

one copy of the exhibits would be retained by Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff had 

knowledge based on the Court’s previously issued Amended Trial Order as to the number 

of exhibits binders (and exhibits) that had to be made by each party. (ECF No. 94 at 3.) 

The Court finds that the cost in duplicating four copies of each exhibit was necessary and 

reasonable. 

 The Court further finds that the photographic copies were digital images printed on 

81⁄2 x 11 inch copy paper, and therefore these exhibits were not traditional photographs, as 

contemplated in Civil Local Rule 54.1(7)(a) and (b). In addition, the Court finds that the 

costs incurred in the duplication of these digital images were necessary and reasonable. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to ReTax Costs in GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is awarded costs 

in the amount of $4,206.30. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 11, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 133 Filed 08/11/16 Page 7 of 7