Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00317/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00317-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Alameda California, Office of County Counsel
Defendant
Renee Lias
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE LIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA,

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-00317 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES; MODIFYING

MARCH 2, 2006 ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT’S COST BILL; AND

AWARDING DEFENDANT FULL

AMOUNT SOUGHT IN JANUARY 17,

2006 COST BILL 

Defendant County of Alameda California, Office of County Counsel has filed a motion for

attorney’s fees from plaintiff pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and therefore VACATES the

hearing currently scheduled for March 10, 2006. Having carefully considered the papers filed by the

parties, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion. Based upon review of defendant’s reply

regarding attorney’s fees, the Court also modifies the March 2, 2006 order regarding costs as set forth

below.

1. Attorney’s Fees

Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) allows a court, “in its discretion,” to award a prevailing party “a

reasonable attorney’s fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs” in any action or proceeding under

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. “A district court may in its discretion award attorney’s fees to a prevailing

defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or

without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). Although

summary judgment was granted to defendant, the Court does not find the plaintiff’s claims were

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 125 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

“frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” within the meaning of the cases concerning attorney’s

fees. The Court therefore DENIES defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees. (Docket No. 110).

2. Costs

Defendant’s reply to its motion for attorney’s fees also addressed plaintiff’s objections to the cost

bill. Because the parties had originally briefed the attorney’s fees and cost issues separately, the Court

had not reviewed defendant’s attorney’s fees reply prior to issuing the March 2, 2006 order. Defendant’s

reply states that plaintiff cancelled her deposition the day before it was scheduled, and that defendant was

required to expedite the deposition transcript in order to comply with the briefing schedule in place at

the time. (According to defendant, the briefing schedule was subsequently modified at plaintiff’s

request.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant has shown good cause to recover the costs associated

with expediting the deposition transcript, and modifies the March 2, 2006 order to allow for those costs.

Defendant is hereby awarded the full amount requested in the original bill of costs submitted on January

17, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2006

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 125 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2