Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED LAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-04641-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER TAXATION OF COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 228

Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs Alfred Lam and Paula Lieto (“plaintiffs”) 

seeking reconsideration of the court’s order on the taxation of costs. Dkt. 228. Having 

reviewed the papers, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion.

On March 7, 2016, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on all 

claims in this workplace discrimination case. Dkt. 204. Plaintiffs filed both an appeal and 

a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. Dkt. 211, 212. In light of the appeal, the 

court denied a prior motion for reconsideration, which it construed as a Rule 59/60 

motion, for lack of jurisdiction on April 7, 2016. Dkt. 214.

On March 14, the defendants filed a bill of costs, seeking $22,334.76. Plaintiffs 

objected, and the Clerk taxed costs in the amount of $20,294.05 on April 14. Dkt. 215. 

Plaintiffs then filed a motion objecting to the bill of costs, which the court construed as a 

motion seeking review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs under Federal Rule 54(d)(1). Dkt. 

218. The matter was briefed, and on May 19 the court issued an order granting the 

motion in part, and reducing the cost taxation to $14,977.78 because costs for expedited 

transcripts were not recoverable. Dkt. 226.

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 231 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs now bring a “motion for reconsideration” of the May 19 order on taxation 

of costs, purportedly pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(b), 59(e), and 60(b). 

Rules 59(b), 59(e) are not applicable here, as plaintiffs do not seek a new trial or to alter 

a judgment, and none of the grounds listed in Rule 60(b) apply here. Local Rule 7-9(a), 

governing motions for reconsideration, applies only to interlocutory orders prior to 

judgment, and the plaintiffs have not sought leave of the court to file such a motion.

Accordingly, the court will construe the motion is as made pursuant to Federal 

Rule 54(d)(1) to review the clerk’s taxation of costs. However, as the plaintiffs have 

already made such a motion, see Dkt. 217, the instant motion is therefore both repetitive 

and untimely. This is the plaintiffs’ third attempt to object to the taxation of costs. They 

achieved a reduction from the Clerk, Dkt. 215, and a further reduction from the court in its 

May 19 order. Dkt. 226. There is no procedural basis to reconsider the court’s prior 

order, and for good reason: the court has already reviewed and ruled on the matter. The 

motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016.

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 231 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2