Gonzalez v. Ahern

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 9 v. TO STRIKE WELLPATH’S BILL OF COSTS 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 481 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiffs, current and former detainees at Santa Rita Jail, filed this action bringing 14 conditions of confinement claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs named as defendants 15 Alameda County, who oversees the Jail; Wellpath, the third-party contractor who provides 16 medical services at the Jail; and Aramark, the third-party contractor who provides food services at 17 the Jail. The Court denied class certification of Plaintiffs’ claims against Wellpath and Aramark, 18 and in July 2024, the Court granted Wellpath’s motion for summary judgment.1 (Dkt. Nos. 264, 19 475.2) Wellpath subsequently filed a bill of costs totaling $33,537.70 and Plaintiffs filed the now 20 pending motion to strike the bill of costs, which Wellpath has not opposed. (Dkt. Nos. 478, 481.) 21 After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral 22 argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), costs are allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of 25 course “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise.” “When the 26 1 Plaintiffs settled their claims against the remaining Defendants and a motion for preliminary 27 approval of their class action settlement is pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 485.) 1 federal statute forming the basis for the action has an express provision governing costs ... that 2 provision controls.” Green v. Mercy Hous., Inc., 991 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal 3 citations omitted). 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is a fee-shifting statute that allows district courts to award 4 attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the prevailing party in § 1983 cases. However, “[a] 5 defendant in a civil rights case may recover attorneys’ fees only if the plaintiff’s action was 6 “frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980) (quoting 7 Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978)); see also Miller v. Los Angeles Cnty. 8 Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 619 (9th Cir. 1987) (extending Christiansburg to Section 1983 cases 9 reasoning “the strict nature of the Christiansburg standard is premised on the need to avoid 10 undercutting Congress’ policy of promoting vigorous prosecution of civil rights violations under 11 Title VII and § 1983.”). 12 The Ninth Circuit has extended the Christiansburg standard to recovery of costs under fee- 13 shifting civil rights statutes such as the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 14 See Green, 991 F.3d at 1057. Although it has not explicitly addressed whether Christiansburg 15 applies to both costs and attorney’s fees in cases brought under Section 1983, the same reasoning 16 for extending it to costs and fees under other civil rights statutes applies equally to Section 1983 17 cases. That is, to allow recovery against “non-prevailing plaintiffs ‘would undercut the efforts of 18 Congress to promote the vigorous enforcement’ of civil rights actions.” Id. at 1058 (quoting 19 Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422). “Those efforts are not served when ‘the chilling effect upon 20 civil rights plaintiffs would be disproportionate to any protection defendants might receive against 21 the prosecution of meritless claims.’” See Green, 991 F.3d at 1058 (internal citation omitted). 22 Accordingly, the Court concludes the Christiansburg standard applies to requests for costs and 23 fees in Section 1983 actions. 24 While the Court granted Wellpath’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiffs 25 failed to offer evidence creating a dispute of fact as to their Monell claims against Wellpath, 26 Plaintiffs’ claims were not “frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.” To the contrary, as 27 the Court noted, “while the evidence Plaintiffs have proffered might have created a dispute of fact 1 they chose to pursue Monell claims rather than individualized claims and the evidence did not 2 || create a dispute of fact as to their policy and practice claims. (Dkt. No. 475 at 20.) When 3 considering a request for fees or costs against a non-prevailing plaintiff, the Court must not 4 || “engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because Plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his 5 action must have been unreasonable or without foundation.’” Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 421-22 6 || (“This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a 7 || prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success.”). Rather, “[a]ttorneys’ fees [and costs] in civil 8 || rights cases should only be awarded to a defendant in exceptional circumstances.” Barry v. 9 || Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1990). There are no such exceptional circumstances here. 10 || While Plaintiffs did not ultimately prevail, their claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or 11 without foundation. 12 CONCLUSION 5 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to strike 14 || Wellpath’s bill of costs. 15 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 478, 481. 16

= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 23, 2024 19 20 Jogo tol. CQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28