Dayna Padula v. Robert Morris

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Dayna Padula appeals the district court’s award of costs to the defendants following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants. We reverse and remand.

Padula argues that the district court erred when it failed to consider her indigence or inability to pay the award of costs because her declaration was unsigned. We agree. The record contained another copy of the declaration opposing costs and an IFP affidavit, both signed under penalty of perjury, when the district court ruled on costs and denied the IFP motions. Because the district court incorporated its ruling from the IFP order into the costs order and the IFP motions included evidence of Padula’s inability to pay, the district court should have considered her ability to pay costs. See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir.2003); Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079-80 (9th Cir.1999). We express no opinion on whether the district court should or should not tax costs against Padula. The district court has discretion to refuse to tax costs.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that defendants’ errors in the first bill of costs, which were…