Genosa v. Global K9 Protection Group, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 VINCENT GENOSA, an individual, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00063-AJB-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION TO RETAX COSTS v. 14 (Doc. No. 36) 15 GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability 16 Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendant. 18

19 GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability 20 Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, 21 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 22

23 v.

24 VINCENT GENOSA, an individual, 25 Counterclaim Defendant. 26

28 1 Before the Court is Vincent Genosa’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to retax costs. (Doc. No. 2 36.) Global K9 Protection Group, LLC (“Defendant”) filed an opposition, to which 3 Plaintiff replied. (Doc. Nos. 38, 39.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 4 Plaintiff’s motion. 6 On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pleading federal-question 7 jurisdiction and the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of California 8 Military and Veterans Code § 389; (2) discrimination in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311; (3) 9 retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5; and (4) wrongful termination in 10 violation of public policy. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. at 1, 3–7.) After discovery, Defendant 11 moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action, arguing that he cannot 12 establish the elements of his claims. Because Plaintiff conceded to Defendant’s request for 13 summary judgment as a matter of law on his discrimination claims under California and 14 federal law, the Court dismissed those claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 28 at 3.) Having 15 dismissed Plaintiff’s cause of action under 38 U.S.C. § 4311—the only claim giving rise 16 to the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction—the Court declined to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. (Id. 18 at 3–4.) 19 Defendant thereafter filed a Bill of Costs with the Clerk, seeking reimbursement of 20 $2,586.60 in costs associated with taking Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. No. 32.) The Clerk 21 taxed the entirety of the costs requested in Defendant’s favor, finding them taxable under 22 the Local Rules. (Doc. No. 35 at 2.) Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to retax costs. 23 (Doc. No. 36.) This Order follows. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d)(1) establishes that costs, other than 26 attorneys’ fees, are to be awarded to a prevailing party “as a matter of course in the ordinary 27 case.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 28 2000). While “the rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing 1 party,” it also “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Id. at 591. 2 The court’s “discretion is not unlimited,” and it “must specify reasons for its refusal to 3 award costs.” Id. Reasons for refusing to award costs include: (1) a losing party’s limited 4 financial resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; (3) the chilling effect of 5 imposing high costs on future civil rights litigants; (4) the closeness and difficulty of the 6 issues in the case; (5) the prevailing party’s recovery was nominal or partial; (6) the losing 7 party litigated in good faith; and (7) the case presented a landmark issue of national 8 importance. Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 9 2003). 10 The losing party bears the burden to “show why costs should not be awarded.” Save 11 Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). And “[a]lthough a district 12 court must ‘specify reasons’ for its refusal to tax costs to the losing party, . . . we have 13 never held that a district court must specify reasons for its decision to abide the presumption 14 and tax costs to the losing party.” Id. (citation omitted). 16 Here, Plaintiff argues that: (1) Defendant is a not a prevailing party and (2) there are 17 “good reasons” to deny costs. (Doc. No. 36 at 3.) The Court disagrees. 18 First, following summary judgment briefing, the Court dismissed with prejudice 19 Plaintiff’s state and federal discrimination claims. (Doc. No. 28 at 3, 5.) Specifically, the 20 Court explained: “The Court enters summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against 21 Plaintiff on his discrimination claims under California Military and Veterans Code § 389 22 (Claim 1) and under 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (Claim 2). These claims are DISMISSED WITH 23 PREJUDICE.” (Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).) Because “a dismissal with prejudice is 24 tantamount to a judgment on the merits,” Defendant “is clearly the prevailing party” on the 25 dismissed claims for purposes of costs under Rule 54. Zenith Ins. Co. v. Breslaw, 108 F.3d 26 205, 207 (9th Cir. 1997);1 see also Cadkin v. Loose, 569 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) 27

28 1 || ‘a defendant is a prevailing party following dismissal of a claim if the plaintiff is judicially 2 || precluded from refiling the claim against the defendant in federal court’). 3 Second, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to “show why costs should not be 4 || awarded” as a matter of course. Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. Considering the asserted 5 reasons for denying costs, Plaintiffs contention that awarding costs in this case would have 6 chilling effect on future employment civil rights cases is unavailing. Plaintiff's dismissed 7 claims did not involve close or complex issues. Nor did they involve a landmark issue. 8 || Moreover, Defendant sought and was awarded only the costs expended to take □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 || deposition: $2,586.60. The Court does not find this amount to be unreasonable or 10 |/exorbitant. And the record indicates an ability to pay. (Doc. No. 36-1 at 2 (reflecting 11 || Plaintiff's discretionary income of nearly $1,000 per month).) While other state law claims 12 ||remain against Defendant, it nonetheless prevailed against the entirety of Plaintiff's 13 || discrimination-based claims, on the merits, such that he is precluded from reasserting them 14 the future. Defendant’s success in this action was, therefore, not nominal. 15 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to “show why costs 16 ||should not be awarded.”? Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. Cf Ass’n of Mexican-Am. 17 || Educators, 231 F.3d at 593 (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion to 18 ||deny costs in a case involving close and complex issues of the gravest public importance 19 || and affecting thousands of individuals). 20 |TV. CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to retax costs. (Doc. No. 36.) 23 Dated: July 1, 2025 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 ||2 While there is no requirement that a district judge specify reasons for abiding by the presumption of || awarding costs to the prevailing party, the Court nevertheless does so here in the interest of completeness. See Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945.