Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael L. Taylor; Dilawar Khan; Volena

Glover-Hale; Manuel Montoya, on behalf

of themselves and other persons similarly

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

AutoZone Inc., a Tennessee corporation;

AutoZone Inc., a Nevada corporation;

AutoZoners LLC,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-08125-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' motion to review clerk's taxation of costs (doc. 292),

defendants' response (doc. 293), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 294).

Plaintiffs filed this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action, asserting that

they were entitled to overtime pay as Store Managers of Autozone. We granted summary

judgment to defendants on all claims (doc. 278). Defendants filed an application for costs

(doc. 280), to which plaintiffs objected (doc. 283) and defendants responded (doc. 288). The

Clerk taxed $66,599.02 in costs against plaintiffs (doc. 291). Plaintiffs move this court to

review the costs taxed against them.

Under Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., costs are presumptively awarded to the

prevailing party, although the court has the discretion to deny the award. The losing party

bears the burden of proof to show why we should not award costs. Save Our Valley v. Sound

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 295 Filed 06/11/12 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 -

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003). Appropriate reasons to deny costs include "(1)

a losing party's limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; [] (3) the

chilling effect of imposing [] high costs on future civil rights litigants;" (4) "the issues in the

case were close and difficult;" (5) "the prevailing party's recovery was nominal;" (6) "the

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

importance." Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs argue in part that their limited financial resources and the potential chilling

effect on FLSA litigation weigh in favor of reversing the Clerk's taxation of costs.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not persuasively established that their financial

resources are limited, because plaintiffs have not indicated who is ultimately responsible for

the payment of costs under their fee agreement with counsel. Plaintiffs have not submitted

a copy of the fee agreement or affirmatively confirmed its contents. Although plaintiffs

submitted declarations in support of their opposition to the taxation of costs, these

declarations do not affirmatively state that they will be ultimately responsible for paying the

costs. They simply state that the plaintiffs cannot afford to pay "a judgment" of several

thousand dollars (docs. 284, 285, 286, 287).

Plaintiffs argue that "the arrangements that class counsel may have made with their

clients" is not the proper focus. Reply at 3. We disagree. The issue of who will ultimately

incur the taxed costs is directly relevant to two of the factors that the Ninth Circuit (and

plaintiffs) ask us to take into account: the plaintiffs' limited resources (which is irrelevant if

their counsel will cover the costs) and the potential chilling effect on future FLSA litigation.

See Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), 2011 WL 4835742, at *4 (S.D.

Cal. Oct. 12, 2011) (denying motion to deny costs in part because plaintiff "has not argued

that he—as opposed to his counsel, pursuant to a fee agreement—will have to pay the cost

award himself"); Tibble v. Edison Int'l, CV-07-5359-SVW (AGRx), 2011 WL 3759927, at

*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (chilling effect of taxing costs against plaintiffs low because

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 295 Filed 06/11/12 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 -

plaintiffs not liable for costs under the fee arrangement). Without this information, we

cannot accurately assess whether plaintiffs have overcome Rule 54(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.'s

presumption that costs should be taxed against them.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this order,

plaintiffs shall submit (1) a sworn declaration or affidavit from plaintiffs' counsel

affirmatively stating who is responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the Clerk under

the fee arrangement; (2) a copy of the fee arrangement between the named plaintiffs and

counsel; and (3) a sworn declaration or affidavit from the four named plaintiffs explicitly

stating whether they will be personally responsible for payment of the costs taxed by the

Clerk.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2012.

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 295 Filed 06/11/12 Page 3 of 3