Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01666-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICIA WAGNON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01666 CSK

ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS

(ECF Nos. 141, 142)

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Alicia Wagnon and Sullivan R. From’s Bill 

of Costs (ECF No. 142) and Defendants Rocklin Unified School District (“RUSD”), Placer 

County Office of Education (“PCOE”) and David Hawkins’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 141). 

For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs and DENIES

Defendants’ Bill of Costs. Each party will bear its own costs for this litigation.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants alleging various 

federal and state law claims. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On May 22, 2023, Defendants sent 

Plaintiffs an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 for 

$150,000.00, which Plaintiffs did not accept. Defs.’ Obj. at 4, 11-14 (ECF No. 143). On 

February 5, 2024, Defendants sent Plaintiffs a subsequent Offer of Judgment pursuant 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 151 Filed 01/08/25 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

to Rule 68 for $405,000.00, which Plaintiffs did not accept. Id. at 4, 8-10.

This action proceeded to trial on Plaintiffs’ six remaining claims: (1) Section 1983 

Fourth Amendment claims against Hawkins; (2) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”) against the RUSD and PCOE; (3) Rehabilitation Act § 504 against the 

RUSD and PCOE; (4) Battery against Hawkins; (5) Negligence against Hawkins; and 

(6) Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) against Hawkins. See Compl.; 3/30/2021 Order on 

Second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22); 3/6/2023 Joint Statement (ECF No. 67); 

7/5/2023 Summary Judgment Order (ECF No. 76); 9/24/2024 Joint Pretrial Statement 

(ECF No. 84); 10/31/24 Amended Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 11).1 On November 13, 

2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their disability discrimination 

claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act § 504, and in favor of Defendant

Hawkins on Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 Fourth Amendment, battery, negligence, and Bane 

Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) claims. Jury Verdict (ECF No. 139). The jury awarded 

Plaintiff From $9,000 in past non-economic damages and awarded Plaintiff Wagnon 

$17,000 in past economic loss, for a total of $26,000. Id. at 7. Judgment was entered 

pursuant to the jury verdict on November 15, 2024. (ECF No. 140.) 

Plaintiffs now seek to recover costs totaling $16,765.42. Pls.’ Bill of Costs at 1 

(ECF No. 142). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ claimed costs and seek to recover costs

totaling $6,109.88 that were incurred after Plaintiffs rejected their Rule 68 offer. Defs.’ 

Bill of Costs at 1 (ECF No. 141); Defs.’ Obj. Plaintiffs also oppose Defendants’ claimed 

costs. Pls.’ Obj. (ECF No. 144). 

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit shall recover its costs 

“unless ... a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “A party in whose 

favor judgment is rendered is generally the prevailing party for purposes of awarding 

1 All other claims were dismissed, resolved on summary judgment, or abandoned. See 

Compl.; 3/30/2021 Order on Second Motion to Dismiss; 3/6/2023 Joint Statement; 

7/5/2023 Summary Judgment Order; 9/24/2024 Joint Pretrial Statement; 10/31/24 

Amended Final Pretrial Order. 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 151 Filed 01/08/25 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

costs under Rule 54(d).” d'Hedouville v. Pioneer Hotel Co., 552 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1977). 

“In the event of a mixed judgment, however, it is within the discretion of a district court to 

require each party to bear its own costs.” Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th 

Cir. 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997); see also Klune v. Palo Verde Health Care Dist., 

761 F. App'x 751, 755-756 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming the district court’s decision that each 

side bear its own costs because plaintiff prevailed on only one claim against 

defendants).

Here, this case resulted in a mixed judgment. The jury returned a verdict in favor 

of Plaintiffs on their claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act § 504, and in favor 

of Defendant Hawkins on Plaintiffs’ four claims pursuant to Section 1983 Fourth 

Amendment, battery, negligence, and Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). See Jury 

Verdict. Because the parties each obtained partial degrees of success for purposes of 

Rule 54(d), the Court finds it reasonable for each party to bear its own costs. The Court 

therefore exercises its discretion and concludes that each side should bear its own costs 

and denies Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs and Defendants’ Bill of Costs. See Amarel, 102 F.3d at 

1523. 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 142) is DENIED; 

2. Defendants’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 141) is DENIED; and

3. Each party will bear its own costs for this litigation. 

Dated: January 7, 2025

4, wagn1666.17

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 151 Filed 01/08/25 Page 3 of 3