Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03172/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03172-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heather Fong
Defendant
Brian Oliver
Defendant
William Sorgen
Plaintiff
The City and County of San Francisco
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SORGEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO

POLICE CHIEF HEATHER FONG,

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

OFFICER BRIAN OLIVER (#776)

AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 05-CV-03172 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR REVIEW OF CLERK’S

TAXATION OF COSTS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Review of Clerk’s

Taxation of Costs. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, and the record herein, the

Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs for the reasons

stated herein. The Court further orders that Plaintiff shall pay Defendants’ costs in the

amount of $4,987. 

BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2006, this Court granted Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment

on all claims except one state law claim. On October 5, 2006, this Court declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and granted Plaintiff's request

for remand to state court. 

On October 18, 2006, Defendants filed a bill of costs in the amount of $4,987 for

court fees and other costs associated with the litigation. On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed

an opposition to strike Defendants’ bill of costs arguing that (1) Defendants have waived

their costs due to untimely filing, and (2) Defendants are not prevailing parties because a

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 7
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

final judgment has not been entered. Alternatively, he argues that costs should be denied to

prevent a chilling effect on other civil rights litigants pursuing litigation against the State. 

Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Clerk of the Court denied the taxation of costs

on November 20, 2006 reasoning that a "judgment has not been entered." On November 29,

2006, Defendants filed the instant motion to review the Clerk's denial of costs. Defendants

contend that the bill of costs was timely filed, that they are prevailing parties in the action

and are entitled costs because a remand order is considered a "judgment" within the meaning

of Rule 54. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff has not supported his contention that

costs should be denied due to the potential chilling effect on civil right's litigants.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 54(d)(1) provides that "costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of

course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 

This rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. Ass'n of

Mexican-American Educators v. State of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). 

The federal rule provides little guidance as to the time to file a motion to recover

costs. However, under this District's local rules, a prevailing party must file a bill of costs no

later than 14 days after entry of judgment. Civ. L. R. 54-1. A party may oppose the bill of

costs within 10 days after service and file objections stating specific grounds as to each

objection. Civ. L. R. 54-2(a). The parties are also required to meet and confer and make a

good faith effort to resolve any disagreement. Civ. L. R. 54-2(b). 

Generally, the Clerk of the Court makes the initial determination to tax the costs as

submitted by the parties. 10 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 54.100[2] at 54-143 (3d ed.

1997). The action of the clerk may be reviewed by the court by motion within 5 days after

notice of the clerk's decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). However, if no such motion is filed

within 15 days of the Clerk's taxation of costs, the Clerk's determination of costs shall be

final. Civ. L. R. 54-5. A trial court has considerable discretion in awarding or denying costs. 

Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 233 (1964)(The judge has considerable

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

discretion “to decide the cost question himself”). On a timely motion for review, the district

court makes a de novo determination of the costs at issue. Lopez v. San Francisco Unified

Sch. Dist., 385 F. Supp. 2d 981, (D. Cal. 2005). However, a court may not tax costs beyond

those authorized by statute. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42

(1986). 

DISCUSSION

As noted above, Defendants contend that they are entitled to costs because a final

judgment was entered in their favor and thus they are prevailing parties within the meaning

of Rule 54(d)(1). Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not prevailing parties because no final

judgment has been entered, given the remaining issue in state court. Plaintiff further objects

to Defendants’ bill of costs stating that it was untimely filed and that it would discourage

future civil rights litigants from pursuing actions.

1. The Bill Of Costs Was Timely Filed

While Rule 54(d)(1) is silent as to when to file a motion for taxation of costs, the

local rules provide that “a prevailing party must file a bill of costs no later than 14 days after

entry of judgment.” Civ. L. R. 54-1. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ bill of costs was not

timely because it was filed more than 14 days after the partial summary judgment ruling

issued on September 7, 2006. Defendants contend that there was no judgement until October

5, 2006, when this Court remanded the remaining state claim. 

 Partial summary judgments "are by their terms interlocutory." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 (1976). The remand order, however, effectively eliminated

federal jurisdiction as to all of Plaintiff’s claims, and thus constituted a judgment, as

discussed infra, for purposes of Civil Local Rule 54-1. As such, Defendants’ Bill of Costs

was timely because it was filed within 14 days of the October 5, 2006 order remanding the

case to state court. 

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 7
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

1

The Court notes that while there is no Ninth Circuit authority relating to taxation of

costs following a remand order, a Fourth Circuit unpublished opinion is directly on point. In

Lepore v. Ramsey, 986 F.2d 1414 (4th Cir. 1993), the court affirmed taxation of costs after

defendants prevailed on federal claims and state claims were remanded. Id. at *2. 

4

2. The Remand Does Not Preclude Defendants’ Bill of Costs 

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants' request for costs is premature because the

remanded state claim has not yet been resolved. 

It is generally understood that "the appropriate time for taxing costs is after a decision

has been reached in the action." 10 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE § 2679 at 482 (3d ed. 1998). The rule does not specifically require an entry of a

valid final judgment. Moreover, the pending state action does not affect the finality of the

federal litigation. United States v. Rice, 327 U.S. 742, 751-752 (1946); Libhart v. Santa

Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979). The federal litigation was complete

once the federal claims were disposed of and the remaining state law claim was remanded. 

Indeed, at this point the federal court no longer had jurisdiction over any aspect of the case. 

Accordingly, the pendency of the state court claim does not preclude Defendants’ bill of

costs.1

3. Defendants Are “Prevailing Parties”

Rule 54(d)(1) provides that a District Court has jurisdiction to tax costs as a matter of

course to the “prevailing parties in the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)(citations omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not prevailing parties because (1) the case is still active

in state court, and (2) Defendants did not prevail as to all issues in their Summary Judgment

motion. Plaintiff’s contentions are without merit. 

A defendant is considered “the prevailing party when the proceeding is terminated by

court-ordered dismissal or judgment in favor of defendant.” Contessa Food Prods. v.

Lockpur Fish Processing Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26000, *32 (C.D. Cal. 2001)(aff’d and

rev’d on other grounds). Additionally, a prevailing party is one that won at trial,

irrespective of whether or not that party prevailed on all issues. K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co.,

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

506 F.2d 471, 477 (9th Cir. 1974)(The court found that plaintiff was the prevailing party

although he did not sustain his entire claim); Manildra Milling Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc.,

878 F.Supp. 1417, 1424 (D. Kan. 1995). Here, this Court awarded summary judgment in

favor of Defendants on all adjudicated claims except for the one claim that was remanded to

state court. Further as discussed above, Plaintiff’s pending state action does not effect the

finality of the federal action. Defendants qualify as “prevailing parties” within the meaning

of Rule 54(d)(1). 

4. Civil Rights Litigants Are Not Immune From Paying Costs

Finally, Plaintiff contends that imposing costs on a civil rights litigant will cast a

chilling effect on future civil rights cases, citing Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v.

State of California. That action involved difficult state-wide issues of public importance in

which the cost bill totaled $216,443.67. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at

579. The district court denied costs to Defendants for the following reasons: 

(1) the case ‘involves issues of substantial public importance,’ specifically

‘educational quality, interracial disparities in economic opportunity, and access

to positions of social influence’; (2) there is great economic disparity between

Plaintiffs, who are individuals and ‘small nonprofit educational organizations’,

and the State of California; (3) the issues in the case are close and difficult; and

(4) Plaintiffs' case, although unsuccessful, had some merit.

Id. at 592. 

Plaintiff contends that economic disparity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants and

that the instant case involves important legal questions. However, this case differs

dramatically from Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators in many respects. Ass’n of

Mexican-American Educators involved a state-wide test that affected minority teachers in the

education system throughout California. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s case concerns a challenge to an

individual arrest. Nor has Plaintiff provided any evidence documenting indigency or

inability to pay. Moreover, some courts have held that limited financial resources do not

necessarily warrant denial of costs in all instances. Ardalan v. Monterey Inst. of Int'l Studies,

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18765, *8 (N.D. Cal. 2004); Smith v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth.,

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

47 F.3d 97, 100 (3d Cir. 1995)(The court held that a losing party's inability to pay does not

automatically exempt it from the taxation of costs). Further, the relatively modest amount of

costs at issue is unlikely to chill future civil rights litigants. Save Our Valley v. Sound

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir. 2002)( The court found that denial of costs were not

warranted as “no such injustice will result from [an] award of $ 5,310.55”); Monterey Inst. of

Int'l Studies, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *13 (An award of $ 2,838.35 is not such an exorbitant

amount to chill future civil rights litigants)(citations omitted). 

 While the Court is not insensitive to Plaintiff’s argument, it is not persuaded that this

is an instance where denial of costs is required to avoid a chilling effect in future cases. 

Odbert v. U.S., 576 F. Supp. 825, 828 (E.D. Cal. 1983). 

5. The Costs Sought By Defendant Are Warranted By The Rules

Defendants seek costs in the amount of $4,987 for the following items: Fees for the

Clerk: $250, Fees for Service: $13, Court Reporter Fees: $4,624 and Fees for Witnesses:

$100. These costs are warranted under both 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Civil Local Rule 54-3. 

Civil Local Rule 54-2 provides that the Plaintiff must specifically object to each item

in the bill of costs within 10 days after service. Plaintiff has had two instances to object to

Defendants’ costs, after Defendants filed their bill of costs and after Defendants filed a

motion to review the Clerk’s taxation of costs. Plaintiff has failed to object in either instance

and instead requests that the Court set a briefing schedule so that he may object to

Defendants’ costs. This Court declines to set a briefing schedule when Plaintiff has had two

instances to object but failed to do so. Plaintiff has not challenged Defendants’ costs, either

showing that they are unreasonable, unnecessary or improper. 10 WRIGHT, MILLER &

KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2668 at 232-238. Accordingly, Defendants’

request for costs shall be approved for the amount requested. 

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’

Motion For Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion to

Strike Defendants’ Bill of Costs is DENIED. 

Defendants are entitled to the following costs: Fees for the Clerk: $250, Fees for

Service: $13, Court Reporter Fees: $$4,624 and Fees for Witnesses: $100, totaling $4,987. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 2/14/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 62 Filed 02/15/07 Page 7 of 7