8 Cited authorities

Assoc. of Mexican-Am. v. State of Calif
231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 814 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the same where the indirect employer, the State of California, implemented an allegedly discriminatory skills test that was a prerequisite for the plaintiffs to gain employment with their direct employers, the school districts
Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co.
342 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 330 times
Holding that even though attorney's fees were not properly awardable under Rule 68, costs (excluding fees) were mandatory
Miles v. State of California
320 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 168 times
Holding the district court "did not abuse its discretion in concluding that [plaintiff] did not present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that costs should be granted to the prevailing party."
You v. Longs Drug Stores California LLC
594 F. App'x 438 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 8 times
No. 13-15786 03-02-2015 TAMMY P. YOU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA LLC, doing business as Long Drugs; THOMAS MCKEOWN; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIP 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants - Appellees. NOT FOR PUBLICATION DC No. 1:11 cv-0530 SOM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015 Honolulu
Mulligan v. Yang
Case No. CV 15-712 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2017) Cited 2 times
Holding that an award of $6,281.85 was "a reasonable sum that confirms the ordinary nature of the [civil rights] case"
Luong v. City of S.F.
630 F. App'x 691 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 2 times
No. 13-16305 11-16-2015 KIMBERLY LUONG; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. NOT FOR PUBLICATION D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05661-MEJ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted October 20, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. This disposition is not appropriate for
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 42,906 times 145 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,880 times 52 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Adam Trotter v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding the same where the indirect employer, the State of California, implemented an allegedly discriminatory skills test that was a prerequisite for the plaintiffs to gain employment with their direct employers, the school districts

Holding that even though attorney's fees were not properly awardable under Rule 68, costs (excluding fees) were mandatory

Holding the district court "did not abuse its discretion in concluding that [plaintiff] did not present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that costs should be granted to the prevailing party."

Holding that an award of $6,281.85 was "a reasonable sum that confirms the ordinary nature of the [civil rights] case"

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"