Estate of Tyler S. Rushing v. AG Private Protection, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF TYLER S. RUSHING, No. 2:18-cv-01692-MCE-AC et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 AG PRIVATE PROTECTION, INC., 15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 By way of this action, Plaintiffs sought to recover for injuries sustained as a result 18 of a fatal altercation between Tyler S. Rushing (“Decedent”)1 and the following groups of 19 Defendants: (1) AG Security Protection, Inc. (“AG”), and AG security guard and 20 supervisor Edgar Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (collectively the “Security Defendants”); (2) the 21 City of Chico (the “City”), the Chico Police Department (“Chico PD”), Chico PD Sergeant 22 Scott Ruppel, and Officers Cedric Schwyzer, Alex Fliehr, and Jeremy Gagnebin 23 (collectively the “City Defendants”); and (3) the County of Butte (the “County”), the Butte 24 County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”), and Deputy Sheriff Ian Dickerson (collectively 25 the “County Defendants”). On July 22, 2020, the Court entered judgment in favor of 26 Defendants. Presently before the Court are three separate Bills of Costs submitted by 27 28 1 Plaintiffs are Decedent’s estate and his parents, Scott K. Rushing and Paula L. Rushing. 1 | each set of Defendants. ECF Nos. 67-69. 2 The Court declines to award costs. See Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 3 | 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: 4 | (1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the 5 || issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited 6 | financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.”); Save Our 7 | Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “that the district court 8 || abused its discretion in rejecting a losing civil rights plaintiffs motion to deny costs to the 9 | defendant without considering: (1) the plaintiff's limited financial resources and (2) the 10 | chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs”). Each of the factors 11 || weighs against taxing costs against these civil rights plaintiffs, who have limited financial 12 || resources when compared to Defendants. Moreover, taxing costs would likely chill 13 || future litigation in such difficult and important cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes 14 | that awarding Defendants their costs in this case would be inappropriate. 15 IT |S SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: August 12, 2021 ” Mater LEK Whig { AX Xo - 8 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28