Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01835/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01835-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed August 17, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

DOROTHY LANAGAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN 

TRANSIT DISTRICT, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-01835 HRL 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DENY COSTS 

[Re: Docket No. 63] 

Pro se plaintiff Dorothy Lanagan (“Lanagan”) sued her former employer, the Santa Cruz 

Metropolitan Transit District (“Metro”), alleging what appeared to be claims under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”). The Court 

granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) based on her limited financial 

resources. (Docket No. 4.) The Court ultimately granted Metro’s motion for summary judgment 

and entered judgment in favor Metro. (Docket No. 59.) 

As the prevailing party, Metro submitted a bill of costs totaling $2,769.59, and Lanagan 

moved for the Court to deny, or alternatively, reduce the costs.1 (Docket Nos. 61 & 63.) In her 

motion, Lanagan argues that the costs should be denied because of her limited financial resources.2 

 

1

 The Clerk of the Court approved costs in the amount of $2,659.59 as costs in the amount of 

$110.00 were disallowed as outside of the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54-3. (Docket No. 62.) 2

 Lanagan also argues in her motion that her lawsuit was filed in good faith and not to harass or 

molest the defendant unnecessarily and so the costs should be denied on this basis. The Ninth 

Circuit, however, has previously held this argument to be insufficient to justify the denial of costs to 

a prevailing party. See National Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1995) 

Case 5:09-cv-01835-HRL Document 73 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides in relevant part: “Unless a federal statute, 

these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be 

allowed to the prevailing party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). “By its terms, the rule 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. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citing National Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1995)). But 

the court’s discretion is not unlimited; it must “specify reasons” for denying costs. Id. at 591-92 

(citing Subscription Television, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Theater Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 234 (9th 

Cir. 1978)). 

One reason for denying costs has been a non-prevailing party’s limited financial resources. 

See National Org. for Women v. Bank of California, 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1982); see also

Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1358 (9th Cir. 1984); Moore v. Hughes 

Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 486 (9th Cir. 1983). Indeed, and especially in civil rights cases, 

“[i]ndigency is a factor that the district court may properly consider in deciding whether to award 

costs.” Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 

National Org. for Women v. Bank of California, 680 F.2d at 1294 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

DISCUSSION 

In her motion, Lanagan claims that she cannot pay the $2,659.59 bill of costs because (a) her 

monthly costs total $2,586 and (b) she does not have a job and her husband only earns about $2,700 

per month.3

 (Motion at 2.) At oral argument, Lanagan, under penalty of perjury, testified that her 

expenses as detailed in her motion were true and correct, that sometimes her husband’s pay was 

much less than $2,700, and that her lack of assets as detailed in her IFP application has not changed. 

Given her very limited financial resources, the Court finds Lanagan’s argument compelling. 

In Stanley, the Ninth Circuit found that the “mere fact that [the non-prevailing plaintiff] had not 

 

(district court abused its discretion by denying costs based on the insufficient reason that the 

plaintiffs brought their case in good faith and without vexatious purpose). 3

 Lanagan breaks down her monthly expenses as follows: Rent: $1,100; Utility Bills: $300; Car 

Insurance: $31; Food: $700; Medical Expenses: $80; Assistance to Her Daughter: $375. (Motion at 

2.) 

Case 5:09-cv-01835-HRL Document 73 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

obtained employment at the time of the filing of the cost bill is persuasive evidence of the possibility 

she would be rendered indigent” if she were made to pay the $46,710.97 in costs awarded by the 

district court. Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, 

Lanagan has no job and relies upon her husband’s income, and it is clear from their monthly 

income, expenses, and absence of savings that Lanagan cannot afford to pay the costs. 

Based on the foregoing, Lanagan’s motion to deny costs is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-01835-HRL Document 73 Filed 08/17/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

C09-01835 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Donald Douglas Shureen doug.shureen@mcmillanshureen.com, 

sonja.gray@mcmillanshureen.com 

Notice will be provided by other means to: 

Dorothy Lanagan 

631 Bronte Avenue 

Watsonville, CA 95076 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-01835-HRL Document 73 Filed 08/17/10 Page 4 of 4