Sienze v. Moore
- Jeffrey White
- 4:19-cv-04279
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sienze v. Moore, Judge White granted the plaintiffs’ motion to review costs, barring collection of $3,033.75 from two plaintiffs.
Crystal Lynn Kemp (Sienze) and Victor Mario Sienze, III, are not required to pay the $3,033.75 in taxed costs to the defendants. The order concerns only the moving plaintiffs identified in the opinion.
What happened
In Sienze v. Moore, the defendants won summary judgment, and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on February 8, 2024. The defendants then sought $3,798.75 in costs, and the clerk later taxed costs at $3,033.75.
Crystal Lynn Kemp (Sienze) and Victor Mario Sienze, III, asked the court to deny the costs because of their limited financial resources, the public importance of the issues, and the possibility that costs could discourage other civil-rights lawsuits. Defendant Benjamin R. Moore responded.
Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the motion to review taxation of costs. Because of the moving plaintiffs’ limited means, the public interest involved, and the potential chilling effect on civil-rights litigation, the court ruled that the costs could not be collected from Kemp and Sienze.
The detailed version
- Sienze v. Moore · No. 4:19-cv-04279
- Jeffrey White
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against the plaintiffs on February 8, 2024. The defendants filed a bill of costs seeking $3,798.75. After the clerk issued a deficiency notice, the defendants filed an amended bill of costs. On March 14, 2024, the clerk taxed—or formally assessed—costs of $3,033.75.
On March 26, 2024, Crystal Lynn Kemp (Sienze) and Victor Mario Sienze, III, filed a motion asking the court to review the taxation of costs. Benjamin R. Moore filed a response.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party receives taxable costs other than attorney’s fees. The losing party must show why costs should not be awarded. The court may decline to award costs based on factors including the losing party’s limited financial resources, misconduct by the prevailing party, the importance and complexity of the issues, the strength of the losing party’s case, and the possibility that high costs could discourage future civil-rights litigation.
Court’s analysis
The moving plaintiffs argued that the costs should be denied because they had limited financial resources, the case raised issues of public importance, and imposing costs could discourage other civil-rights litigants. The court found their arguments and evidence concerning their inability to pay compelling. It also considered the public interest reflected in the litigation and the potential chilling effect on important civil-rights litigation.
Disposition
The court granted the moving plaintiffs’ motion to review taxation of costs. It ruled that the $3,033.75 in costs sought by the defendants could not be collected from Crystal Lynn Kemp (Sienze) and Victor Mario Sienze, III.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.