Amaral v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO AMARAL, an individual, Case No.: 3:17-cv-2409-L-LL

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX COSTS (DOC. 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., NO. 63) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to retax costs. Defendants opposed, 18 and Plaintiff replied. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted without oral 19 argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 20 motion. 21 On March 31, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion on 22 the federal claims and dismissed without prejudice the state law claims. (Doc. No. 51). 23 Defendants submitted a bill of costs. (Doc. No. 53). The Clerk issued an order taxing 24 $4,967.65. (Doc. No. 62). Plaintiff filed a motion to retax costs. (Doc. No. 63). 25 There is a strong presumption that prevailing parties will recover costs. See Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 54; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 n.12 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 But the Court has discretion to refuse to award costs. Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 28 n.12. “Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial public 1 importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the 2 chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and 3 (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 4 (9th Cir. 2016). “This is not an exhaustive list of ‘good reasons’ for declining to award 5 costs, but rather a starting point for analysis.” Id. 6 Here, Plaintiff raised important issues related to the Fourth Amendment’s limits on 7 police conduct. The case also involved the scope of qualified immunity. See, e.g., 8 Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting it is important for 9 civil rights litigants to test legal boundaries). And individual cases – which might seem 10 to have no major implications outside themselves – can support Monell liability in later 11 cases. See, e.g., Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). The first factor 12 weighs against the award. 13 The Court did not rule on the merits of the state law claims. And it did not 14 determine whether a constitutional violation related to the unlawful force claim occurred. 15 Instead, the decision rested on qualified immunity’s second prong, whether the right was 16 clearly established. That legal area is complex and presents difficult questions. But 17 Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest/detention claims lacked merit. The second factor is more 18 neutral. 19 The award – $4,967.65 – is significant. For instance, it is about 1.3 times 20 Plaintiff’s monthly after-tax pay. (Doc. No. 63). The award might discourage 21 meritorious civil rights claims. This is especially true for section 1983 cases where the 22 plaintiffs seek only nominal damages or have minor actual damages. Several potential 23 litigants would not risk losing their ability to pay expenses for more than a month – even 24 if they had a meritorious claim. The third factor weighs against the award. 25 Plaintiff is a teacher. (Doc. No. 63). He earns a modest income, making about 26 $3,830 after-tax each month. Id. His expenses equal or exceed that amount. Id. Plaintiff 27 also has over $60,000 in consumer debt and student loans. Id. The award would have a 28 significant impact on his financial status. The fifth factor weighs against the award. I The City of San Diego has significant resources. However, its finances are not 2 unlimited. And the presumption under the Federal Rules applies to any prevailing party. 3 || But the award would have a significantly greater impact on Plaintiff. The sixth factor 4 || weighs against the award. 5 Overall, Plaintiff rebutted the presumption. It would be inappropriate and 6 || inequitable to award costs. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion. Defendants 7 ||SHALL NOT recover costs in this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: July 7, 2021 fee oop 11 H . James Lorenz, 1D United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28