Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00062/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00062-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE CONNELL, ) 

) 2:08-cv-00062-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendant as the prevailing party at trial of this case has

submitted a bill of costs in which it requests that the Clerk tax

$11,015.78 for costs incurred in this action, the majority of which is

attributed to witness fees and fees for printing or electronically

recording transcripts. Plaintiff objects to the bill of costs.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action in state court,

in which she alleged the following claims against her physician,

Doctor Frank LiVolsi (“LiVolsi”): (1) negligent infliction of

emotional distress; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress

(“IIED”); (3) assault and battery; and (4) sexual battery. The action

was removed to federal court, and the United States was substituted as

defendant in place of Livolsi after the Attorney General certified

under 42 U.S.C. § 233 that LiVolsi was an employee of the Public

Health Service acting within the scope of his employment during the

conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. As a result of this

substitution, Plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery and sexual

Case 2:08-cv-00062-GEB-CMK Document 117 Filed 08/06/10 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

battery were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, which

was granted. (Docket No. 58.) Plaintiff’s IIED claim was tried to

the bench in a three-day bench trial. The Court issued an order in

which it held “plaintiff does not prevail on her IIED claim” because

she “has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she

suffered severe emotional distress.” (Docket No. 112 11:15-16, 18-

19.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d) prescribes

that “costs-other than attorney’s fees-should be allowed to the

prevailing party” unless a federal statute, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure, or court order provides otherwise. Rule 54(d) “creates a

presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but

vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” 

Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572,

591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “[C]osts are to be awarded as a matter

of course in the ordinary case.” Id. at 592. However, the Ninth

Circuit has “approved several factors that would justify a district

court’s refusal to award costs to a prevailing party: the losing

party’s limited financial resources; misconduct on the part of the

prevailing party; . . . the importance and complexity of the issues;

the merit of the plaintiff’s case, even if the plaintiff loses; and

the chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high

costs.” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir.

2003) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff failed to prevail on her IIED claim because she

did not satisfy the element of this claim requiring her to present

Case 2:08-cv-00062-GEB-CMK Document 117 Filed 08/06/10 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

evidence that she suffered severe or extreme emotional distress. 

However, in light of Plaintiff’s testimony concerning LiVolsi’s last

statement to her as he exited the examination room following his last

examination of Plaintiff, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim are such

that the court denies Defendant’s request for entry of its bill of

costs.

Dated: August 6, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00062-GEB-CMK Document 117 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 3