Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02002/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02002-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GYPSIE JONES, NO. 2:04-cv-2002-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY dba

FOODS CO #355; DOLLAR TREES

INC. dba DOLLAR TREE #2041;

GABRIEL H. CHIU & LAI HAR

CHIU, Co-Trusttes of the CHIU

FAMILY TRUST; and DOES 1

through 10,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On December 5, 2006, Plaintiff Gypsie Jones filed a Bill of

Costs in this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount

of $257.60. Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs was submitted prior to the

Court’s Judgment in favor of Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

(“Dollar Tree”) on December 14, 2006.

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02002-MCE -KJM Document 116 Filed 06/20/07 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

The December 14, 2006 Judgment makes it clear that Plaintiff

was not the prevailing party in this litigation, since it details

the fact that most of Plaintiff’s claims were resolved through

the Court’s May 19, 2006 Memorandum and Order granting partial

summary judgment in Dollar Tree’s favor. The two claims that

remained viable were dismissed by the Court on November 16, 2006

on grounds that the access barriers at issue had already been

remedied.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing

party in a lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court

otherwise directs.” Rule 54(d) plainly requires that only a

prevailing party is entitled to costs. Moreover, and in any

event, the ultimate decision on whether to award costs is a

matter within the Court’s discretion. Association of MexicanAmerican Educators v. State of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th

Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff cannot surmount her initial burden of establishing

that she was a “prevailing party” entitled to costs. In

addition, even were Plaintiff to argue that she was instrumental

in remediating the two claims that survived summary judgment,

which she did not (Plaintiff filed no response to Dollar Tree’s

December 6, 2006 Objection on grounds that Plaintiff was not a

prevailing party), the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were

unquestionably adjudicated in Dollar Tree’s favor. The Court, in

its discretion, declines to award Plaintiff costs under those

circumstances.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02002-MCE -KJM Document 116 Filed 06/20/07 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

For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs is

rejected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02002-MCE -KJM Document 116 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 3