Greenspan v. Musk
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-04647
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Greenspan v. Musk, Judge Chesney denied Greenspan’s motion to reverse Tesla’s $405 costs award after his federal claims were dismissed.
Aaron Jacob Greenspan must remain subject to the clerk’s $405 costs award to Tesla; the order also affects the other defendants because it rejects Greenspan’s request to reverse the award.
What happened
In Aaron Jacob Greenspan v. Elon Musk, et al., the court had previously dismissed Greenspan’s federal claims and sent his state-law claims to state court. Tesla then sought $405 in costs for the filing fee it paid to move the case from state court to federal court, and the clerk awarded that amount.
Greenspan asked the court to review and reverse the clerk’s award. He argued that removal was improper, Tesla was not the winning party, the fee was not necessary, and fairness considerations—including the case’s importance, possible chilling effects, his finances, and the parties’ financial differences—weighed against the award.
Judge Maxine Chesney rejected those arguments and denied the motion. The court concluded that Tesla was the winning party, the $405 removal fee was a taxable cost, and the fairness considerations did not justify denying it.
The detailed version
- Greenspan v. Musk · No. 3:24-cv-04647
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 19, 2025
Background
The court had previously dismissed Greenspan’s federal claims with prejudice and remanded his state-law claims to state court. Tesla then filed a bill of costs seeking reimbursement for the $405 filing fee it paid when removing the action from state court. The clerk of court taxed, or awarded, costs in that amount.
Greenspan moved for court review and reversal of the clerk’s costs award. The order addresses four arguments: that removal was improper, that Tesla was not the prevailing party, that the removal fee was not necessarily incurred, and that equitable considerations favored denying costs.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Greenspan’s argument that the prior order had found Tesla’s removal improper. Although the court had determined that the original state-law claims did not raise a federal question, it had not ruled that removal was improper. Greenspan later filed an amended complaint adding a federal claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which gave the federal court jurisdiction over the case, and he chose to proceed in federal court.
The court also held that Tesla was the prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority holding that a defendant can be the prevailing party after winning dismissal of a plaintiff’s federal claims even when the remaining state-law claims are sent to state court.
The court further concluded that the $405 removal filing fee was a taxable cost. It noted that other district courts had rejected the argument that such a fee was not necessarily incurred merely because Tesla chose to remove the action.
Finally, the court considered equitable reasons for denying costs. It was not persuaded that the case’s alleged public importance or a potential chilling effect supported denying costs. Greenspan also did not sufficiently show that the award would significantly affect his financial stability, despite his assertions about his limited resources and the financial disparity between him and Musk. The court also declined to deny otherwise awardable costs based on Greenspan’s allegation that defendants’ spending on attorney’s fees showed harassment.
Disposition
The court found that Tesla was the prevailing party, that its $405 filing fee was taxable, and that equitable factors did not weigh against awarding costs. Judge Maxine Chesney therefore denied Greenspan’s “Motion for Court Review and Reversal of Clerk’s Costs Award.”
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.