1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 25-cv-06950-WHO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. AWARD COSTS AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

10 ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47 Defendant. 11

12 13 Defendant ABC Legal Services, LLC (“ABC”) moves for an award of costs after 14 defending itself in this “frivolous” lawsuit. In response, plaintiff George Jarvis Austin (“Austin”) 15 seeks to sanction ABC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Because I agree with ABC that 16 Austin is a vexatious litigant, and because I find that ABC has not engaged in any sanctionable 17 conduct, I GRANT the motion for costs and DENY the motion for sanctions. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 Motion for Costs 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), “costs—other than attorney’s fees— 21 should be allowed to the prevailing party” of an action. However, district courts maintain 22 discretion to award costs when a party seeks voluntary dismissal. See Sequa Corp. v. Cooper, 245 23 F.3d 1036, 1037–38 (8th Cir. 2001). “In determining whether to award costs . . . to a defendant 24 after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, courts generally consider the following factors: (1) 25 any excessive and duplicative expense of a second litigation; (2) the effort and expense incurred 26 by a defendant in preparing for trial; (3) the extent to which the litigation has progressed; and (4) 27 the plaintiff’s diligence in moving to dismiss.” Williams v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 1 “merits of the plaintiff’s case” in determining whether to award costs after voluntary dismissal. 2 See id. 3 Motion for Sanctions 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires that attorneys present arguments that are 5 not improper or frivolous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). In determining whether a party has violated Rule 6 11, courts apply a reasonableness standard. See Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 628 (9th 7 Cir. 1993). A showing of subjective bad faith is not required. See Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 8 1488 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that sanctions cannot be avoided by the “empty head, pure heart” 9 defense); see also Zaldivar v. City of L.A., 780 F.2d 823, 831 (9th Cir.1986), overruled on other 10 grounds by Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (stating that the certification 11 requirements of Rule 11 are violated “if the paper filed . . . is frivolous, legally unreasonable or 12 without factual foundation, even though . . . not filed in subjective bad faith”). 13 The court may, on its own, “order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why 14 conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). 15 If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that FRCP 11(b) has 16 been violated, the court is permitted to impose sanctions, which may include monetary sanctions 17 to the court or an order to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to the opposing party. Id. 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Motion for Costs 20 ABC seeks $840.00 in costs it was “forced to incur in its defense of this fourth meritless 21 action” brought by Austin. See Defendant ABC Legal Services, LLC’s Motion for Costs [Dkt. 22 No. 41-1] at 1 (emphasis in original). It maintains that Austin is a “vexatious litigant” who has 23 asserted “nearly identical claims” in numerous lawsuits brought against ABC over the past four 24 years. Id. ABC provided documentation showing it incurred $435.00 in costs to remove this 25 action from state court, as well as $405.00 to litigate in federal court. See id.; Bill of Costs [Dkt. 26 No. 40]. 27 Austin did not file an opposition to ABC’s motion for costs, although he seems to 1 (“Sanctions Mot.”) [Dkt. Nos. 42–43]. There, he alleges that ABC is engaging in 2 “gamesmanship” by seeking a bill of costs, despite this Court allegedly “completely lack[ing] 3 Federal Jurisdiction.” Id. at 2. 4 As explained in my order terminating this case, see Dkt. No. 39, I did not rule on the 5 question of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I have jurisdiction over “collateral issues after an action is 6 no longer pending,” including the awarding of costs. See Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 395. With 7 that in mind, I agree with ABC that it is entitled to the full $840.00 in costs. While costs are 8 normally awarded to a prevailing party in a dispute, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), courts may also 9 award costs to a party after voluntary dismissal. See Santa Rosa Mem’l Hosp. v. Kent, 688 Fed. 10 App’x 492, 494 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, ABC was forced to defend itself against a fourth, nearly 11 identical lawsuit filed by the same “vexatious litigant.” See Austin v. Geo. Univ., et al., No. 24- 12 6943 (9th Cir. June 27, 2025) (declaring Austin to be a vexatious litigant); Austin v. Geo. Univ., 13 No. 21-16191 (9th Cir. May 22, 2023) (same). The costs sought by ABC are reasonable under the 14 circumstances and under the Williams factors. See 227 F.R.D. at 540. ABC’s motion is 15 GRANTED. 16 II. Motion for Sanctions and Removal of Counsel 17 Austin seeks sanctions against ABC’s counsel and, if necessary, removal of counsel. 18 Sanctions Mot. at 6. He maintains that ABC engaged in “gamesmanship” by “vexatiously, 19 knowingly, and willfully” removing this case to federal court, despite “knowing” that his 20 complaint asserted only state law claims. Id. 21 In response, ABC contends that it is “unclear from the motions what, exactly, [Austin] 22 contends are grounds for sanctions.” Defendant ABC Legal Services, LLC’s Opposition to 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 45] at 2. On the issue of jurisdiction, ABC points out 24 that removal was proper because the complaint included a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, meaning 25 there was federal question jurisdiction. Id. Even so, ABC contends, questions about jurisdiction 26 are moot since Austin’s case has been voluntarily dismissed. Id. at 3. 27 I agree with ABC. Austin has not provided any legal authority to support his claim that 1 U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), is factually inapposite. In Royal Canin U.S.A., 2 || the Supreme Court concluded that if a state court case was removed to federal court on grounds of 3 diversity jurisdiction, and “after removal, the plaintiff amends [their] complaint to delete all... 4 || federal-law claims,” the federal court “loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law 5 claims” and the case “must therefore return to state court.” Jd. at 25-26. Here, Austin’s case was 6 || removed to federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction, as he raised a claim under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute. See Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1] at 2; Ex. A Complaint 8 || (“Compl.”) at 133. While Austin appears to have later amended his complaint to remove the § 9 1981 claim, see Dkt. No. 8, this cause of action was certainly in the complaint at the time of 10 removal. See Compl. at 133. Based on this, ABC could not have filed for removal “knowing that 11 the Operative Complaint [was] 100% California State Claims” as Austin suggests. See Sanctions 12 || Mot. at 6. Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted. 13 CONCLUSION 14 ABC’s motion to award costs is GRANTED. Austin shall pay to ABC costs in the amount 3 15 of $840.00. Austin’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 |] Dated: October 20, 2025

19 ® liam H. Orrick 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28