Brian H. v. Blue Shield of California
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:17-cv-03095
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brian H. v. Blue Shield, Judge Chesney overruled plaintiffs’ objection and directed taxation of Blue Shield’s costs under Rule 54(d)(1).
The plaintiffs and California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California; the Clerk of Court was directed to tax the costs.
What happened
In Brian H. v. Blue Shield, the plaintiffs objected to California Physicians’ Service’s bill of costs, arguing that an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rule—not the federal rule governing taxable costs—controlled.
Blue Shield responded that the federal cost rule applied. The court agreed, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that Rule 54(d)(1) applies when a prevailing party in an ERISA case seeks taxable costs.
Judge Chesney overruled the objection and directed the Clerk of Court to tax costs according to Blue Shield’s bill. The opinion does not state the amount of costs sought.
The detailed version
- Brian H. v. Blue Shield of California · No. 3:17-cv-03095
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 26, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs filed an objection to California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California’s bill of costs. They argued that Blue Shield improperly relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which concerns taxable costs, instead of the governing provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).
Court’s analysis
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., which held that Rule 54(d)(1) applies when a prevailing party in an ERISA case seeks an award of taxable costs. The court also considered factors that can support denying costs, including the losing party’s limited financial resources, misconduct by the prevailing party, a possible chilling effect on future civil-rights litigants, whether the issues were close and difficult, whether the recovery was nominal or partial, whether the losing party litigated in good faith, and whether the case involved a landmark issue of national importance. The court found that none of those factors had been shown to weigh against awarding the relatively limited amount sought.
The court further stated that the factors discussed in Hummel v. S.E. Rykoff & Co. concern an award under ERISA’s provision for attorneys’ fees and a broad range of costs, rather than the bill of costs at issue under Rule 54(d)(1).
Ruling
Judge Maxine Chesney overruled the plaintiffs’ objection to Blue Shield’s bill of costs. Because no other objections had been raised, the court directed the Clerk of Court to tax costs in accordance with the bill of costs. The opinion does not state the amount of costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.