Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01349/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01349-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

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

CHRISTINE MYERS, Acting as

guardian ad litem for L. Myers, a

minor,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 02cv1349-BEN 

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

RE-TAX COSTS (Dkt. No. 588)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) to re-tax costs

imposed against the Plaintiff in the amount of $13,271.06. Plaintiff’s motion is

granted. No costs are imposed.

DISCUSSION

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a presumption

in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party. Nevertheless, the Court has

discretion to deny costs. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts other than attorneys’ fees

shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise

directs.”). The Court may deny costs where the circumstances are such that an

award “would be inappropriate or inequitable.” Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby

Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). Circumstances justifying

the denial of costs include the following: (1) a losing party’s limited financial

resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; and (3) ‘the chilling effect of

- 1 - 02cv1349-BEN

Case 3:02-cv-01349-BEN-MDD Document 595 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

imposing high costs on future civil rights litigants.’” Id. (quoting Association of

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

banc)). Other factors for denying costs include that the issues were close and

difficult, and that “the case presented a landmark issue of national importance.” Id.

The Court finds it would not be equitable to award the Government costs

against the Plaintiff. In other circumstances, the costs incurred by the Government

would be reasonably awarded. But, the issues in this case were close and difficult. 

The Plaintiff is part of a military family with limited financial resources that is

already sacrificing in manifold ways for the benefit of the Government. Moreover,

an award of costs in favor of the Government and against Plaintiff could have a

chilling effect upon future military families living on military bases considering

suits where the Government undertakes potentially hazardous remediation projects. 

Finally, the presented legal issue of when the discretionary function exception

applies is an issue of national importance. The Court finds these factors justify the

Court’s exercise of its discretion to deny costs to the Government in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds this is an unusual case where

an award of costs in favor of a prevailing party defendant would be inequitable. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs, and vacates the

Clerk’s order taxing costs in favor of Defendant. No costs are awarded to the

Government defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 22, 2017

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 02cv1349-BEN

Case 3:02-cv-01349-BEN-MDD Document 595 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2