Sullivan

Sullivan v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

Bad Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 20193:17-cv-06051California676 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 In this action for violations of constitutional rights, plaintiffs moves to retax costs. To 19 the extent stated below, the motion is GRANTED and otherwise DENIED. 20

STATEMENT

21 Previous orders have stated the facts of the case. In short, plaintiffs Clark Sullivan, 22 Adam Bredenberg and three others sued defendants City of Berkeley and the Bay Area Rapid 23 Transit District (BART) alleging claims under the ADA, First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 24 Amendments. A January 2018 order dismissed BART as a defendant and all of the claims 25 against the City except for the First Amendment retaliation, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment 26 claims. Trial occurred in May 2019, a jury verdict went for defendant City of Berkeley, and 27 judgment was entered in favor of defendant City of Berkeley. In early June 2019, defendant 28 City of Berkeley filed a bill of costs totaling $9,073.35. Plaintiffs filed objections on the 1 $6,672.60, disallowing costs for service of deposition subpoenas, video synchronization, and 2 court reporter attendance fees. Plaintiffs now move to have the costs re-taxed, requesting denial 3 of all costs or alternatively, denial of costs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.