Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00893/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00893-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:0621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

18cv893-MMA (MDD)

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

HELEN CHISOLM,

Plaintiff,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv893-MMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO RE-TAX DEFENDANT 

7-ELEVEN, INC.'S BILL OF COSTS

[Doc. No. 50]

Plaintiff Helen Chisolm (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment discrimination action 

against Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. (“Defendant” or “7-Eleven”) alleging various violations 

of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, 

et seq., and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. See Doc. No. 1. The 

Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on May 23, 2019. Doc. No. 37. 

On June 26, 2019, the Clerk held a hearing for taxation of costs. See Doc. No. 49 at 1; 

see also Doc. Nos. 39, 41, 42, 47. The Clerk taxed $5, 952.13 in costs in favor of 

Defendant on July 10, 2019. Doc. No. 49 at 4.

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-tax costs. Doc. No. 50. Defendant 

filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff replied. Doc. Nos. 51, 52. The Court found 

the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to 

Case 3:18-cv-00893-MMA-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv893-MMA (MDD)

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

Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 53. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion.

The California Supreme Court has held that the standard delineated by the United 

States Supreme Court in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), 

applies to discretionary awards of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing FEHA parties 

under California Government Code section 12965(b). Williams v. Chino Valley Indep.

Fire Dist., 61 Cal. 4th 97, 99-100 (2015); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b) (“In civil actions 

brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party . 

. . reasonable attorney’s fees and costs . . . .”). Thus, a prevailing defendant in a FEHA 

case “should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was 

objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it 

clearly became so.” Williams, 61 Cal. 4th at 115 (citing Christiansburg Garment Co., 

434 U.S. at 421-22). In other words, litigation costs are awarded to a prevailing FEHA 

defendant where the action brought is found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or 

vexatious. See Christiansburg Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 421.

It appears Plaintiff’s claims were brought in good faith and with the honest belief 

that she had been wronged. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s action was frivolous because 

she “offered no evidence to support her claims.” Doc. No. 51 at 6. Although the Court 

ultimately concluded that Defendant should prevail at summary judgment, the Court does 

not find that this was a case where Plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or without 

foundation. The Court found that Plaintiff had some circumstantial evidence of her 

claims but concluded that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact. 

See Doc. No. 37 at 15, 23, 26-29, 35-39. The Court ultimately granted summary 

judgment due to the lack of evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged 

protected activity and adverse actions and because Defendant demonstrated a legitimate, 

non-discriminatory reason for the adverse actions. See id. at 18-19, 21, 35-40. 

Additionally, the Court sustained several evidentiary objections raised by Defendant. See 

id. at 6-11. As such, the Court did not consider some of Plaintiff’s supporting evidence. 

Case 3:18-cv-00893-MMA-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv893-MMA (MDD)

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

Id. Thus, this is not a situation where the claim was “wholly without merit.” See Galen 

v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007). Rather, this is a case where 

there was ultimately not enough admissible evidence to proceed to trial. See Shah v. Mt. 

Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 642 F.2d 268, 270 n.2 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming denial of fee 

where plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case of discrimination,” but the claim 

was “not entirely ‘frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation’”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 50), 

DENIES costs, and VACATES the Clerk of Court’s Order dated July 10, 2019 (Doc. 

No. 49).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00893-MMA-MDD Document 54 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3