The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al., Case Nos. 18-cv-07393-JSC
Plaintiffs, 18-cv-07394-JSC
8
v.
9 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
10 FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE TO STAY TAXATION OF COSTS
NATATION,
Re: Dkt. No. 446
11
Defendant.
12 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING
LEAGUE, LTD.,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE
16 NATATION,
17 Defendant.
18
Following summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay
19
Defendant Fédération Internationale De Natation (FINA)1 $143,105.46 in taxable costs. (Dkt.
20
Nos. 430, 445.)2 Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s summary judgment ruling. (Dkt. No. 425.)
21
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the Clerk’s taxation of costs pending Plaintiffs’ Ninth
22
Circuit appeal. (Dkt. No. 446.) FINA only seeks recovery from International Swimming League,
23
Ltd. (ISL), not the individual Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 447 at 2.) Having carefully considered the
24
briefing, the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L. R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS
25
26
1 FINA changed its name to World Aquatics in January of 2023.
27
2 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) in Case No. 18-cv-07394-
1 Plaintiffs’ motion.
2 DISCUSSION
3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), “[u]nless a federal statute, these
4 rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to
5 the prevailing party.” However, the Court has discretion to defer ruling on a taxation of costs
6 while an appeal on the merits is pending. Lasic v. Moreno, No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD, 2007
7 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007); Dunklin v. Mallinger, No. 11-cv-01275-JCS, 2013
8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85340, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2013); see also Advisory Committee Notes
9 to Rule 54(d) (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for
10 fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing
11 under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved.”). The
12 reasoning of the Advisory Committee Notes applies equally to a ruling on a bill of costs. Lasic,
13 2007 WL 4180655, at *1.
14 In determining whether to stay an order pending an appeal, courts consider the following
15 factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
16 the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance
17 of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the
18 public interest lies.” Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL 1304779, at
19 *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
20 On balance, the Hilton factors weigh in favor of staying the order on the taxation of costs
21 pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit. First, Plaintiffs demonstrate a “fair
22 prospect of success” on appeal. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752, 755 (9th
23 Cir. 2019). The second factor is neutral. Given the small amount of money at issue, there has
24 been no showing of irreparable harm to ISL. For the same reason, a stay will not irreparably
25 injure FINA. Finally, the public interest weighs neutrally.
26
27
1 CONCLUSION
2 The parties have likely spent more money litigating the cost award than is actually at issue.
3 While the Court questions the parties’ motivations, it has, nonetheless, adjudicated the motions on
4 || the merits. For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the taxation of costs
5 || pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Ninth Circuit appeal is GRANTED.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated: December 21, 2023
8
9 ne
MA CQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY,
10 United States District Judge
1]
a 12
2B
«14
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28