Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 - 05cv1581

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS’

ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and

on behalf of all of its members,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1581 H (POR)

ORDER REGARDING COSTS

 

vs.

MICHAEL AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 18, 2007, the Court ruled on various motions for summary judgment filed

by the parties. (Doc. No. 736.) On June 26, 2007, after supplemental briefing, the Court

entered an order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the remaining

federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overthe remaining state

law claims. (Doc. No. 753.) 

On June 29, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing supplemental briefing

regarding costs. (Doc. No. 756.) Plaintiff filed its supplemental brief on July 27, 2007.

(Doc. No. 760.) Aguirre filed a supplemental brief on August 10, 2007. (Doc. No. 762.)

The City, Individual Defendants, and SDCERS filed a supplemental brief on August 10,

2007. (Doc. No. 763.) Aguirre filed a notice of joinder in the City, Individual

Defendants, and SDCERS’ brief on August 13, 2007. (Doc. No. 764.) For the reasons

stated below, Defendants are the prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to all

of their recoverable costs incurred during this litigation. Additionally, neither party is

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 6
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 - 05cv1581

entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees.

Discussion

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the default rule that

costs are awarded to the prevailing party: “Except when express provision therefor is

made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs other than attorneys'

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

directs[.]” The Southern District of California Civil Local Rules explain when a

defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of taxing costs: “The defendant is the

prevailing party upon any termination of the case without judgment for the plaintiff

except a voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).” Civ. L.R. 54.1(f). Here,

Defendants are the prevailing party and Plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumption

in favor of awarding Defendants their costs.

A. Defendants are the Prevailing Parties

1. Defendants Have Prevailed on the Entire Federal Action

If a court enters judgment in favor of a party, that party is the prevailing party

under Rule 54(d). See generally Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir.

1996). A party need not prevail on every issue to be considered the prevailing party.

See, e.g., Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 1997) (interpreting

prevailing party in context of a request for attorneys’ fees). Additionally, as noted in the

Local Rules, absent a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of an action, the defendant is the

prevailing party whenever the case is terminated without a judgment for the plaintiff.

Thus, in cases in which courts have granted judgment in favor of defendants on federal

claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims, courts have

determined that defendants were the prevailing parties for purposes of Rule 54(d). See,

e.g., Ogborn v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 305 F.3d 763, 770 (7th

Cir. 2002); Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 353 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Sasser v.

Amen, 57 Fed. Appx. 307, 309 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court denied costs simply

because it concluded that the [dismissed] RICO claims are ‘intertwined’ with pendant

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 6
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 - 05cv1581

state-law claims, which it dismissed without prejudice. However, the district court’s

decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims

does not change the fact that Defendants are fully the prevailing party in this federal

case.”).

In its supplemental brief, Plaintiff argues that it may be considered the prevailing

party. Plaintiff cites no authority supporting its position that it may be considered a

prevailing party under the circumstances in this case. Rather, the cases upon which

Plaintiff relies all involved settlements or a court granting a plaintiff some relief. See,

e.g., Richard S. v. Dep’t of Dev. Svcs., 317 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (settlement

including permanent injunction); Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n, 277 F.3d 1128

(9th Cir. 2002) (settlement for $10,000); Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th

Cir. 2000) (settlement providing for equitable relief). Additionally, Plaintiff references

the results of a related state action. Plaintiff, however, cites no authority for the

proposition that it may recover costs in this federal litigation based on involvement in

a separate state court action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that it should be

considered a prevailing party is without merit.

Defendants are the prevailing parties in this case. As to Aguirre, the Court granted

summary judgment in his favor on Plaintiff’s claims. As to the remaining Defendants,

the Court granted summary judgment as to the federal claims and declined to exercise

jurisdiction overthe supplemental claims. Accordingly, Defendants have fully prevailed

as to this federal case.

2. Costs Should Not Be Apportioned

As noted, Defendants have prevailed as to all claims in this federal litigation.

Additionally, courts generally decline to apportion costs even where the prevailing party

is only partially successful. For example, in K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., the Ninth

Circuit upheld the trial court’s refusal to apportion costs even though the plaintiff

prevailed on only two of twelve trade secret claims. 506 F.2d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir.

1974). The court explained: “Although a plaintiff may not sustain his entire claim, if

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 - 05cv1581

judgment is rendered for him he is the prevailing party.” Id. Similarly, in Sorgen v. City

and County of San Francisco, the court awarded all costs to the defendants after granting

summary judgment in their favor on all claims except one state law claim, which the

court remanded. Case No. 05-CV-03172, 2007 WL 1514432 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2007).

The court noted that “the federal litigation concluded in Defendants[’] favor, and thus

they are ‘prevailing parties’ within the meaning of Rule 54(d) irrespective of whether or

not they prevailed on all issues.” Id. at *2 (citing K-2 Ski Co., 506 F.2d at 477).

Moreover, the cases Plaintiff cites do not support apportionment, but instead address

what costs are recoverable under the federal cost statute. See, e.g., Sorbo v. United

Parcel Svc., 432 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2005) (district court improperly allowed

reimbursement for items not within the scope of the federal cost statute); Thomas v.

Treasury Mgmt. Ass’n, 158 F.R.D. 364 (D.C. Md. 1994) (same).

Here, the Court has granted summary judgment as to the federal claims and

declined to exercise jurisdiction as to the state law claims. Thus, this federal litigation

has concluded entirely in Defendants’ favor, and Defendants are entitled to all of their

costs in defending this case. Moreover, even were the Court to determine that

Defendants did not prevail as to the state law claims, the Court would decline to

apportion costs because Defendants prevailed on the federal claims and Plaintiff has not

prevailed on any of its claims in this case. 

B. Plaintiff Has Not Overcome the Presumption in Favor of Awarding Costs to

the Prevailing Party

Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing

party. See, e.g., Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523. “[T]he losing party must show why costs

should not be awarded.” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir.

2003). While a district court has discretion to refuse to award costs, that discretion is

limited. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th

Cir. 2000). If a court refuses to award costs, it must specify the reasons for the refusal.

Id. In other words, the court must “explain why a case is not ‘ordinary’ and why, in the

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 - 05cv1581

circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” Champion

Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003); Save Our

Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 (A district court need not specify reasons for abiding by

presumption of taxing costs against the losing party. “A district court deviates from

normal practice when it refuses to tax costs to the losing party, and that deviation triggers

the requirement to ‘specify reasons.’”). 

The Ninth Circuit has discussed, with varying degrees of approval, several reasons

that may justify denial of costs: (1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2)

misconduct by the prevailing party; (3) the chilling effect of imposing high costs on civil

rights litigants; (4) the issues in the case were close and difficult; (5) the prevailing

party’s recovery was nominal, partial, or substantially less than that sought; (6) the losing

party litigated in good faith; and (7) the case presented a landmark issue of national

importance. See Champion Produce, Inc., 342 F.3d at 1022-23. Plaintiff has not shown

that these factors justify denial of costs in this case.

First, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that its resources are significantly

limited or that there is a great disparity between the resources available to the parties.

Second, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence of misconduct by any of the

Defendants. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that the costs here, particularly when

compared to the fees and costs typically incurred in civil rights litigation, are so large as

to have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigation. Fourth, the Court has granted

summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on all the federal claims and declined to

exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Thus, Defendants’

recovery was not substantially less than sought. Fifth, while the City’s pension fund is

an important issue, the questions raised by Plaintiff’s suit do not rise to the level of

“landmark issues of national importance.”

With regard to Plaintiff’s good faith and whether the case was close and difficult,

although courts have noted the significance of these factors, courts in the Ninth Circuit

have not denied costs solely on these grounds. The Ninth Circuit has observed that the

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 05cv1581

good faith of the losing party alone is insufficient to justify denial of costs to the

prevailing party:

All parties to a federal action have an obligation to act in good faith and

with proper purpose. It follows that noble intentions alone do not relieve

an unsuccessful litigant of the obligation under Rule 54(d) to compensate

his opponent for reasonable costs. “If the awarding of costs could be

thwarted every time the unsuccessful party is a normal, average party and

not a knave, Rule 54(d)(1) would have little substance remaining.”

Nat’l Info. Svcs, Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Popeil Bros., Inc. v. Schick Elec., Inc., 516 F.2d 772, 775-76 (7th Cir. 1975)), overruled

on other grounds, Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592. Similarly,

were a court to deny costs solely on the basis of a case being close or a losing party’s

case having merit, it would effectively eliminate the presumptive award of costs under

Rule 54(d).

In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that this case is one of the extraordinary instances

in which the Court should refuse costs to the prevailing party. Accordingly, as the

prevailing parties, Defendants are entitled to their costs under Rule 54(d).

Conclusion

 For the reasons stated above, Defendants are the prevailing parties for purposes of

a cost award under Rule 54(d). Further, Defendants are entitled to recover all of their

costs. Neither party is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 765 Filed 08/24/07 Page 6 of 6