M. v. County of San Mateo

Background

M. M., identified in the opinion as a minor acting through a guardian ad litem, sued the County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department deputies Robert Willett, Devin Crocker, James Brown, and Does 1 to 50. She asserted four causes of action: constitutional-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving an allegedly unreasonable search and seizure, arrest without probable cause, and excessive force or restraint; a § 1983 claim against the County under Monell; a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act; and battery claims.

The court had previously granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied M. M.’s motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for defendants. Defendants then filed a bill of costs totaling $9,483.65. M. M. filed a motion to disallow those claimed costs and had also filed a notice of appeal.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) generally creates a presumption that a prevailing party may receive certain litigation costs. The district court nevertheless has discretion to refuse costs and must give reasons for doing so. The opinion identified five relevant considerations: the plaintiff’s limited financial resources; a large economic disparity between the parties; whether an award would discourage civil-rights litigation; whether the case involved issues of substantial public importance; and whether the case was close and difficult and had some merit.

Court’s analysis

The court found that M. M. had limited financial resources. The opinion states that she had been a teenager living in a group home when she brought the lawsuit, was then 18 years old, earned $2,200 per month, and would suffer substantial financial hardship if required to pay the requested costs. The court also found a substantial economic disparity between M. M. and the County, noting the County’s stated $3 billion budget for fiscal year 2018–2019.

The court further found that awarding the costs could discourage future civil-rights lawsuits. It emphasized that the case involved alleged excessive force during a detention under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150 and concerned the treatment of vulnerable people, including youths in group homes and people experiencing mental episodes. The court also found that the litigation involved issues of substantial public importance because it helped address the limits of police power, even though the court had previously concluded that defendants’ conduct did not cross the legal limit for excessive force.

Finally, the court found that the case was close and difficult and that M. M.’s claims had some merit. It pointed to substantial evidence on both sides, extensive litigation, and the more than twenty pages used to explain the earlier summary-judgment ruling. The court stated that losing the case did not by itself mean that M. M.’s claims lacked merit.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted M. M.’s motion to disallow defendants’ claimed costs. The court therefore disallowed the $9,483.65 in costs against M. M. The order terminated Docket Number 75. The opinion does not state that the earlier judgment for defendants was changed.