Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureCostsRule 54(d)(1)Rule 54(d)(1)taxation of costsprevailing partyAMAEcivil rights litigation

Facts

Plaintiffs were 23 low-wage workers who brought employment discrimination claims alleging that defendant administered certain workplace tests only in English and then terminated employees based on the results, causing an adverse disproportionate impact on persons of Hispanic and Asian national origins. After a lengthy and complex case, including denied cross-motions for summary judgment and a nearly two-month trial, the jury found for defendant on all causes of action submitted. The clerk taxed $84,434.40 in costs against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued that costs should be denied because the case involved issues of substantial public importance, plaintiffs had limited financial resources, there was a large economic disparity between the parties, the issues were close and difficult, and such a large award would chill future civil rights litigants.

Issue

Whether, despite Rule 54(d)(1)'s presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, the district court should deny defendant any costs because this was an extraordinary civil rights case in which taxing $84,434.40 would be inequitable under AMAE. The court also had to determine whether plaintiffs' evidentiary submissions supporting those factors were properly considered.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), costs are presumptively awarded to the prevailing party, but the district court has discretion to deny costs if it specifies reasons showing why the case is not ordinary and why awarding costs would be inappropriate or inequitable. In exercising that discretion in civil rights cases, permissible considerations include whether the case involves issues of substantial public importance, the losing parties' limited financial resources, economic disparity between the parties, whether the issues were close and difficult, and whether a large cost award would chill future civil rights litigants; these factors are not exhaustive, and the losing party need not prove current indigence so long as the award might render them indigent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Twelve delivery drivers in Phoenix sued Desert Span Logistics, alleging a hiring test screened out applicants of certain national origins in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination law. After a three-week trial, the jury found for the company, and the clerk taxed $62,000 in costs; the drivers move for district-court review and ask the court to deny costs because the case involved important discrimination issues, their incomes are modest, and the award would deter similar suits.

Which is the most accurate statement of the district court's authority?

Explanation. Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of costs for the prevailing party, but the district court retains discretion to refuse costs if it specifies reasons showing the case is extraordinary or that awarding costs would be inappropriate or inequitable. Misconduct is one possible reason, not the exclusive one, and the recognized factors are nonexclusive rather than mandatory elements. (Derived from Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. (n.d.).)