Kirola v. City & County of San Francisco, The

Background

Ivana Kirola brought a class action against the City and County of San Francisco and related defendants. She alleged discrimination against people with mobility impairments based on access barriers at city libraries, swimming pools, parks, and public rights-of-way. The complaint asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state civil-rights statutes.

After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Defendants. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed part of that judgment, reversed part, and sent the case back. On March 12, 2021, the court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment, and judgment was again entered for Defendants. Kirola filed a notice of appeal.

Costs dispute

After the first judgment, Defendants had requested more than $100,000 in costs. The parties then entered a stipulated order providing that, if costs were awarded and no other limiting factors applied, the proper amount of taxable costs—taking account of Kirola’s objections to specific items—would be $85,000.

After the later judgment, Defendants filed a renewed bill of costs seeking $100,026.16. The Clerk taxed $73,296.28 and disallowed $26,729.88, including $13,238.02 for reporters’ transcripts. Defendants moved for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs.

Defendants argued that the stipulated order controlled because the renewed bill sought costs for the same expenses as the earlier bill and did not include costs incurred on remand. Kirola argued that the earlier agreement concerned only the earlier judgment and no longer controlled after the Ninth Circuit partially reversed that judgment. She also argued that the Clerk correctly denied the reporters’ transcript costs.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that costs will be awarded to the prevailing party, while allowing the district court discretion to deny costs for specified reasons. The court focused on the parties’ stipulated order rather than separately evaluating each disputed cost item.

The court found that the costs at issue in 2014 and in the renewed bill were identical and that Defendants had not sought costs incurred on remand. Although the Ninth Circuit had partially reversed the earlier judgment, judgment had again been entered in Defendants’ favor. The court therefore held that the stipulated order controlled and that Defendants were entitled to recover $85,000.

Because the stipulated order controlled, the court did not reach Defendants’ alternative argument concerning the individual cost items, including reporters’ transcripts. The court also declined, on its own initiative, to order Kirola to show why a statement in her opposition brief had not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3).

Disposition

Judge Armstrong granted Defendants’ motion to review costs and awarded Defendants costs of $85,000. The order terminated Docket No. 789.