R.D. v. Lake Washington School District

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 R.D. a minor, by and through her personal 9 representatives, CATHERINE DAVIS and 10 SEAN DAVIS; and CATHERINE DAVIS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01009-RAJ individually; and SEAN DAVIS, individually, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR ADJUDICATION OF 12 CLERK’S ORDER v. 13 LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL 14 DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Court Adjudication 18 of Clerk’s Order. Dkt. # 109. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Last year, Defendant Lake Washington School District (“District”) filed a motion 21 for summary judgment. Dkt. # 18. The motion was granted as to Plaintiff’s federal 22 claims (for violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act) but 23 denied as to one of Plaintiffs’ state claims (for negligence). Dkt. # 62. Because only 24 state law claims remained, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and 25 remanded the case to state court. Dkt. # 79. Later, claiming to be the prevailing party, 26 the District moved to tax costs against Plaintiffs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of 27 Civil Procedure. Dkt. # 84. The Clerk of the Court granted the motion but disallowed 1 some of the requested costs. Dkt. # 108. 2 Plaintiffs now challenge the Clerk’s taxation of costs against them, arguing that 3 because the District did not prevail on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim, it is not a “prevailing 4 party” under Rule 54(d). Dkt. # 109 at 5-6. Plaintiffs seek to set aside the cost award 5 until the state claim is fully adjudicated. Id. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Under Rule 54(d), a “prevailing party” is entitled to costs, which the clerk may tax 8 upon the other party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 9 54(d) (entitling a “party in whose favor a judgment is rendered” to recover costs). On 10 timely appeal, the district court judge assigned to a case may review the clerk’s action. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 12 For purposes of Rule 54(d), a “prevailing party” is a “party in whose favor 13 judgment is rendered.” San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ 14 Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting d’Hedouville v. Pioneer Hotel Co., 15 552 F.2d 886, 896 (9th Cir. 1977)). In San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n, the Ninth 16 Circuit made clear that a prevailing party need not prevail on all its claims. Id. In that 17 case, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all federal claims, 18 remanded the remaining claims to state court, and awarded the defendants costs. Id. at 19 732-33. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award, holding that “[b]y obtaining 20 summary judgment on all of [plaintiff]’s federal claims, and with no claims remaining 21 against them in the district court, [defendants] were clearly the prevailing parties in this 22 federal action.” Id. at 742; see also K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 477 (9th 23 Cir. 1974) (holding that plaintiff was a prevailing party even though it prevailed on only 24 two of its 12 trade secret claims). 25 Under that precedent, the District here is a prevailing party. Summary judgment 26 was granted in its favor on all federal claims. Dkt. # 62 at 6-12. And although it did not 27 prevail on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim, it need not prevail on every claim to be the 1 “prevailing party” in this federal action. San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n is directly on 2 point. 568 F.3d at 732. As the Ninth Circuit instructed, for the District to be a prevailing 3 party entitled to costs under Rule 54(d), it is enough that it obtained summary judgment 4 on all federal claims and that no claims remain against it in federal court. Id. That is 5 precisely the case here, and the District is therefore entitled to costs. 6 Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Citing a Seventh Circuit 7 case, Plaintiffs argue that a party cannot prevail “until all claims are resolved against all 8 parties.” Dkt. # 109 at 5 (citing Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 573 F.3d 9 523, 525 (7th Cir. 2009)). But, as discussed, that is not the rule in this Circuit. San 10 Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n, 568 F.3d at 741 (“Nor is it necessary for a party to prevail 11 on all of its claims to be found the prevailing party . . . .”) (citation omitted). In fact, as 12 the District observes, the precedent underlying the Smart decision would likely agree 13 with the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. # 110 at 3-4. In Smart, the Seventh Circuit cited Dale v. 14 Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 654 (7th Cir. 2004), which explained that “[a] final, appealable 15 decision is one that disposes of all claims against all parties, with the exception (not 16 applicable here) where the district court complies with the requirements to enter a partial 17 final judgment.” Id. (emphasis added). Besides Smart, Plaintiffs cite the Advisory 18 Committee notes for Rule 56, which, given the case law here, will not carry the day. Dkt. 19 # 109 at 5-6. 20 Plaintiffs also argue that much of the costs awarded to the District were for 21 deposition transcripts “exhaustively related to the negligence claim and completely 22 unrelated to the federal claims.” Id. They suggest that costs must be apportioned to each 23 claim and that because the District did not prevail on the negligence claim, Plaintiffs 24 should owe no costs. In response, the District argues that Plaintiffs provide no authority 25 for apportionment and that the local and federal rules in fact lean against it. Dkt. # 110 at 26 4-5. The Court agrees with the District and further notes that the case law also supports 27 its position. K-2 Ski, 506 F.2d at 476-77 (affirming a district court’s decision to award all 1 costs to a prevailing party, even though that party prevailed on only two of 12 trade secret 2 claims); San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. Aguirre, No. 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR, 2007 3 WL 2429729, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. San 4 Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725 (9th 5 Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven were the Court to determine that Defendants did not prevail as to the 6 state law claims, the Court would decline to apportion costs because Defendants 7 prevailed on the federal claims and Plaintiff has not prevailed on any of its claims in this 8 case.”). 9 In conclusion, the Court will not set aside the Clerk’s taxation of costs against 10 Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs seek to set aside the cost award, not modify it, the Court 11 accepts the taxation as is. Dkt. # 108. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Court Adjudication of Clerk’s 14 Order is DENIED. Dkt. # 109

15 16 DATED this 21st day of July, 2020.

17 A 18 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 20 United States District Judge 21

22 23 24 25 26 27