1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUAN GARCIA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03519-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS AND DENYING COSTS 10 COUNTY OF NAPA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 99 Defendants. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for review of taxation of costs. Dkt. No. 99 14 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the 15 matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS the motion and denies 16 Defendants’ request for costs. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit following the fatal shooting of Juan Garcia by Defendant 19 Sergeant David Ackman during a traffic stop. Dkt. No. 18 (“FAC”). Plaintiffs—the children, 20 partner, and parents of Mr. Garcia—brought five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California 21 law against Defendants Napa County and Sgt. Ackman. Id. ¶¶ 3–7, 31–64. The Court found that 22 Sgt. Ackman was entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in favor of 23 Defendants as to the federal claims. Garcia v. Cnty. of Napa, No. 21-CV-03519-HSG, 2023 WL 24 355148, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2023). The Court also declined to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Id. 26 Following the entry of judgment, Defendants filed a bill of costs for $25,115.39. Dkt. No. 27 93. Plaintiffs filed objections asking the Court to decline to award Defendants any costs. Dkt. No. 1 Plaintiffs then filed a motion for review of taxation of costs, asking the Court to exercise its 2 discretion and deny Defendants’ costs. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than 5 attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Rule 54(d) 6 thus creates a “presumption for awarding costs to the prevailing party.” Draper v. Rosario, 836 7 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). However, a district court may exercise its discretion to deny 8 costs. Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 9 banc). In such instances, a district court “must specify reasons for its refusal to award costs.” Id. 10 (quotations omitted). Appropriate reasons for denying costs include, but are not limited to: (1) the 11 losing party’s limited financial resources, (2) economic disparity between the parties, (3) the chilling 12 effect on future similar actions, (4) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (5) the partial 13 or nominal recovery of the prevailing party, and (6) the substantial public importance of the case. 14 Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Champion 15 Produce, Inc. v Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A. Plaintiffs’ Limited Financial Resources & Economic Disparity 18 Plaintiffs first argue that they have limited financial resources. Mot. at 3–4. “District 19 courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff and the amount of costs in civil 20 rights cases.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, 21 “[w]hether the financial resources in question are of a level sufficient enough to deny an award of 22 costs can be inferred from the economic circumstances of the plaintiff.” Ayala v. Pacific Maritime 23 Ass’n, No. C08-0119-TEH, 2011 WL 6217298, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (quotations 24 omitted). 25 Eva Lopez Hernandez, Mr. Garcia’s life partner, explained in her declaration that Mr. 26 Garcia’s death significantly impacted her family’s finances because he was the largest wage 27 earner. Dkt. No. 96-1 ¶ 6. (“Hernandez Decl.”) Ms. Lopez Hernandez stated that she lives with 1 She stated that her two eldest sons earn roughly $2,800 and $2,000 per month respectively by 2 working at Home Depot while attending college. Id. ¶ 5. Her youngest son is nine years old. Id. 3 Ms. Lopez Hernandez attests that after paying rent, utilities, bills, and other household expenses, 4 the family is roughly breaking even each month, and paying Defendants’ costs would be a 5 significant financial burden. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. 6 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not provided enough evidence regarding their 7 finances and that they are not “low income.” Dkt. No. 101 (“Opp.”) at 2–4. The Court is 8 unpersuaded. First, Defendants do not provide any authority for the proposition that sworn 9 declarations are insufficient to establish limited financial resources. Courts, including this one, 10 routinely rely on similar declarations. See Knox v. City of Fresno, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1114, 1116 11 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Economus v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 12 3293292, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2019). Further, Plaintiffs need not be “completely indigent” for 13 awarding costs to be inequitable. See Knox, 208 F. Supp. 3d at 1117. Defendants’ assertion that 14 paying costs is not burdensome given Plaintiffs’ joint annual income is particularly unpersuasive. 15 Plaintiffs fall into the category of “low income” for a household of six based on Defendants’ own 16 submitted materials. See Dkt. No. 102 (“Reply”) at 2; Dkt. No. 102-3 at 15:15–16:23 (noting that 17 Ms. Lopez Hernandez’s parents live with the family). Defendants fail to acknowledge the 18 family’s living expenses and ignore that they lost a primary wage earner when Mr. Garcia died. 19 Moreover, Defendants include a public entity with vastly greater resources than Plaintiffs. See 20 Economus, 2019 WL 3293292, at *4; Hunter v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 11-CV-4911 21 JSC, 2013 WL 6088409, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (noting that public entities and public 22 employees were “in a vastly different financial situation than Plaintiffs”). 23 The Court need not “guess” as to the financial condition of the Plaintiffs: Ms. Lopez 24 Hernandez makes clear that the family’s income is just enough to cover the family’s expenses. 25 The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of denying costs. 26 B. Chilling Effect on Future Civil Rights Litigation 27 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that imposing costs on losing civil rights plaintiffs may 1 willing to test the boundaries of our laws, we would not have made much of the progress that has 2 occurred in this nation since [Brown v. Board of Education].” Id. (internal citation omitted). 3 Here, imposing costs against Plaintiffs could have the effect of chilling future civil rights litigants. 4 It is not hard to see how imposing costs of $11,750 on a working family that sought to challenge 5 the use of deadly force against a loved one might inhibit future civil rights litigation. As the Court 6 has noted, imposing costs would be a financial burden given Plaintiff’s financial limitations. 7 Future civil rights litigants of “modest means,” like Plaintiffs, might be deterred from asserting 8 their rights if they knew that losing could result in paying high costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUAN GARCIA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03519-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS AND DENYING COSTS 10 COUNTY OF NAPA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 99 Defendants. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for review of taxation of costs. Dkt. No. 99 14 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the 15 matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS the motion and denies 16 Defendants’ request for costs. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit following the fatal shooting of Juan Garcia by Defendant 19 Sergeant David Ackman during a traffic stop. Dkt. No. 18 (“FAC”). Plaintiffs—the children, 20 partner, and parents of Mr. Garcia—brought five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California 21 law against Defendants Napa County and Sgt. Ackman. Id. ¶¶ 3–7, 31–64. The Court found that 22 Sgt. Ackman was entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in favor of 23 Defendants as to the federal claims. Garcia v. Cnty. of Napa, No. 21-CV-03519-HSG, 2023 WL 24 355148, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2023). The Court also declined to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Id. 26 Following the entry of judgment, Defendants filed a bill of costs for $25,115.39. Dkt. No. 27 93. Plaintiffs filed objections asking the Court to decline to award Defendants any costs. Dkt. No. 1 Plaintiffs then filed a motion for review of taxation of costs, asking the Court to exercise its 2 discretion and deny Defendants’ costs. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than 5 attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Rule 54(d) 6 thus creates a “presumption for awarding costs to the prevailing party.” Draper v. Rosario, 836 7 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). However, a district court may exercise its discretion to deny 8 costs. Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 9 banc). In such instances, a district court “must specify reasons for its refusal to award costs.” Id. 10 (quotations omitted). Appropriate reasons for denying costs include, but are not limited to: (1) the 11 losing party’s limited financial resources, (2) economic disparity between the parties, (3) the chilling 12 effect on future similar actions, (4) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (5) the partial 13 or nominal recovery of the prevailing party, and (6) the substantial public importance of the case. 14 Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Champion 15 Produce, Inc. v Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A. Plaintiffs’ Limited Financial Resources & Economic Disparity 18 Plaintiffs first argue that they have limited financial resources. Mot. at 3–4. “District 19 courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff and the amount of costs in civil 20 rights cases.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, 21 “[w]hether the financial resources in question are of a level sufficient enough to deny an award of 22 costs can be inferred from the economic circumstances of the plaintiff.” Ayala v. Pacific Maritime 23 Ass’n, No. C08-0119-TEH, 2011 WL 6217298, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (quotations 24 omitted). 25 Eva Lopez Hernandez, Mr. Garcia’s life partner, explained in her declaration that Mr. 26 Garcia’s death significantly impacted her family’s finances because he was the largest wage 27 earner. Dkt. No. 96-1 ¶ 6. (“Hernandez Decl.”) Ms. Lopez Hernandez stated that she lives with 1 She stated that her two eldest sons earn roughly $2,800 and $2,000 per month respectively by 2 working at Home Depot while attending college. Id. ¶ 5. Her youngest son is nine years old. Id. 3 Ms. Lopez Hernandez attests that after paying rent, utilities, bills, and other household expenses, 4 the family is roughly breaking even each month, and paying Defendants’ costs would be a 5 significant financial burden. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. 6 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not provided enough evidence regarding their 7 finances and that they are not “low income.” Dkt. No. 101 (“Opp.”) at 2–4. The Court is 8 unpersuaded. First, Defendants do not provide any authority for the proposition that sworn 9 declarations are insufficient to establish limited financial resources. Courts, including this one, 10 routinely rely on similar declarations. See Knox v. City of Fresno, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1114, 1116 11 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Economus v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 12 3293292, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2019). Further, Plaintiffs need not be “completely indigent” for 13 awarding costs to be inequitable. See Knox, 208 F. Supp. 3d at 1117. Defendants’ assertion that 14 paying costs is not burdensome given Plaintiffs’ joint annual income is particularly unpersuasive. 15 Plaintiffs fall into the category of “low income” for a household of six based on Defendants’ own 16 submitted materials. See Dkt. No. 102 (“Reply”) at 2; Dkt. No. 102-3 at 15:15–16:23 (noting that 17 Ms. Lopez Hernandez’s parents live with the family). Defendants fail to acknowledge the 18 family’s living expenses and ignore that they lost a primary wage earner when Mr. Garcia died. 19 Moreover, Defendants include a public entity with vastly greater resources than Plaintiffs. See 20 Economus, 2019 WL 3293292, at *4; Hunter v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 11-CV-4911 21 JSC, 2013 WL 6088409, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (noting that public entities and public 22 employees were “in a vastly different financial situation than Plaintiffs”). 23 The Court need not “guess” as to the financial condition of the Plaintiffs: Ms. Lopez 24 Hernandez makes clear that the family’s income is just enough to cover the family’s expenses. 25 The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of denying costs. 26 B. Chilling Effect on Future Civil Rights Litigation 27 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that imposing costs on losing civil rights plaintiffs may 1 willing to test the boundaries of our laws, we would not have made much of the progress that has 2 occurred in this nation since [Brown v. Board of Education].” Id. (internal citation omitted). 3 Here, imposing costs against Plaintiffs could have the effect of chilling future civil rights litigants. 4 It is not hard to see how imposing costs of $11,750 on a working family that sought to challenge 5 the use of deadly force against a loved one might inhibit future civil rights litigation. As the Court 6 has noted, imposing costs would be a financial burden given Plaintiff’s financial limitations. 7 Future civil rights litigants of “modest means,” like Plaintiffs, might be deterred from asserting 8 their rights if they knew that losing could result in paying high costs. See Stanley, 178 F.3d at 9 1080; see also Hunter, 2013 WL 6088409, at *4 (noting that plaintiff’s “claim of excessive force 10 was significant” and finding the chilling effect counseled in favor of denying costs). The Court 11 finds that this factor also weighs in favor of denying costs. 12 C. Closeness and Difficulty of the Issues 13 Defendants maintain that the case was not particularly close, given that they prevailed on 14 summary judgment. Opp. at 6. However, “[t]he fact that Defendants prevailed at the summary 15 judgment stage does not mean the issues presented were not close or difficult.” See Economus, 16 2019 WL 3293292, at *3 (citing Jefferson v. City of Fremont, No. 12-cv-0926-EMC, 2015 WL 17 1264703, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)). This case involved a particularly challenging 18 application of the second prong of qualified immunity, as well as interpretation of a new Ninth 19 Circuit case decided after the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See 20 Garcia, 2023 WL 355148, at *7–8 (analyzing Smith v. Agdeppa, 56 F.4th 1193 (9th Cir. 2022)). 21 The Court declined to address the first prong of qualified immunity in its order, see id. at *5, and 22 noted at the hearing that if it reached the merits, summary judgment would likely be denied. See 23 Dkt. No. 100 at 2:23–3:1. Thus, even though Defendants ultimately prevailed, this decision 24 presented difficult issues requiring “involved consideration of complex questions of law and fact.” 25 Jefferson, 2015 WL 1264703, at *3. This factor weighs in favor of denying costs. 26 D. Substantial Public Importance 27 Courts in this district have repeatedly found that excessive force cases implicate issues of 1 Economus, 2019 WL 3293292, at *2 (collecting cases); Lopez v. Nguyen, No. 13-CV-3870 CRB, 2 2017 WL 512773, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (finding that a § 1983 claim of excessive force 3 by a law enforcement officer was an issue of substantial public importance); Godoy v. Cnty. of 4 || Sonoma, No. 15-CV-00883-WHO, 2016 WL 6663003, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) (finding 5 || that plaintiff's case raised serious issues of police conduct and excessive force). Here, the fatal 6 || shooting of Mr. Garcia by a police officer during a traffic stop undoubtedly raises issues of 7 substantial public importance. This factor weighs in favor of denying costs. 8 || IV. CONCLUSION 9 On this record, the Court finds substantial compelling reasons to exercise its discretion to 10 deny costs. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, Dkt. No. 99, and denies Defendants’ 11 request for costs in its entirety. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 || Dated: 4/26/2023
Abpured 3 □□ 2 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. a 16 United States District Judge
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28