ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS [doc. #68]
M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego in June, 2011, alleging that under California law, defendant discriminated against her due to her disability, due to her status as a woman, that she suffered from sexual harassment by a co-worker, that she faced retaliation as a result of her sexual harassment claim, and that her transfer back to her old position and her ERB were both adverse employment actions. After the filing of the Notice of Removal, Defendant received Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Exh. C to Amended Notice of Removal. [doc. #3]) All of Plaintiff's discrimination claims are brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), GOV. CODE § 12940, et seq. Plaintiff also alleges violation of the federal Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").
Plaintiff was represented by counsel up to May 21, 2012, when plaintiff filed a consent to have counsel withdraw. Thereafter, plaintiff proceeded without counsel.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on July 25, 2012. [doc. #50]. The Court provided plaintiff with notice regarding the implications of a summary judgment motion, what is required to oppose such a motion,  and when her response was due. [doc. #52] Plaintiff filed her response in opposition. After full briefing, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment on January 24, 2013. [doc. #61] Judgment was entered on that same date.
On February 7, 2013, defendant filed its Bill of Costs in the amount of $5, 570.53. Plaintiff filed a timely written objection to the requested Bill of Costs. Costs were taxed on February 28, 2013, against plaintiff in the amount of $5, 147.23.
On April 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a declaration appealing the taxation of costs. Plaintiff's declaration did not accompany a motion to re-tax or to review the taxation of costs. Nevertheless, the Court construes the declaration as a motion to re-tax.
1. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs the taxation of costs to the prevailing party in a civil matter. Unless a court order provides otherwise, costs (other than attorney's fees) "should be allowed to the prevailing party." FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). This rule creates a presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party. Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). But if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded, the rule "vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs." Id., at 591; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) ("the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded").
In reviewing a motion to deny costs, the Ninth Circuit has noted the following reasons for refusing to award costs to a prevailing party: (1) the losing party's limited financial resources; (2) misconduct on the part of the prevailing party; (3) whether the issues in the case were close and difficult; (4) whether the prevailing party's recovery was nominal or partial; (5) whether the losing party litigated in good faith; and (6) whether the case presented issues of national importance. Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-933 (the Court considers the losing party's financial resources; the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants; whether the issues in the case are close and difficult; and whether plaintiff's case, although unsuccessful, had some merit.).
A motion to review the Clerk's action in awarding costs "must be served and filed within seven (7) days after receipt of the notice" of the clerk's taxation of costs. CIV. L. R. 54(h); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d). Plaintiff had knowledge of this requirement because the Order Taxing Costs [doc. #66] expressly states that a motion to re-tax must be "served and filed within seven (7) days after receipt of the Order Taxing Costs...." (Order filed February 28, 2013 at 2.) Notwithstanding this requirement, the motion plaintiff filed exceeds the allowable time by 35 days. Plaintiff did not seek an extension of time in which to file her motion.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is untimely and may be denied ...