Public Importance of Case, Closeness of Issues, Plaintiff’s Limited Financial Resources, and Disparity in Parties’ Economic Power All Justified Costs Denial.
The Ninth Circuit in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farm, Inc., Case Nos. 11-17608/12-15320 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014) (published) affirmed a jury verdict/district court judgment against a losing plaintiff, who earned $11,622 on average a year, against a much more economically powerful defendant in a complicated/close Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) case.
Forster Farm, as prevailing party, moved to tax costs against losing plaintiff, which the district court declined to do. (Foster Farms sought to recover $13,958 in already clerk-lowered routine costs.)
Foster Farm’s cross-appeal of the costs denial was not successful. The district judge properly denied costs (or, in federal court parlance, refused to tax costs) because (1) the case presented issues of substantial public importance, (2) the issues presented in the case were close and complicated, (3) losing plaintiff had limited financial resources (with the lowered costs being more than a year’s salary for her), (4) there was a danger of chilling FMLA actions, and (5) there was a big disparity in the parties’ economic power. (Ass’n of Mexican-American Educ. v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591-593 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).