1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO CORTEZ and MARIA CORTEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-287 JLS (RBB)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 vs. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 PAUPERIS 15 WEI ZHANG; 1119 E. OHIO AVE. TRUST; NOELLE ZHANG; and DOES (ECF No. 2) 16 1–50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Pedro and Maria Cortez’s Motion to Proceed 20 in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2). On February 14, 2020, Plaintiffs, 21 proceeding pro se, filed an action for violation of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act 22 against Defendants Wei Zahng, 1119 E. Ohio Ave. Trust, and Noelle Zhang. See generally 23 ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Following recusal of the Honorable Michael M. Anello on 24 February 18, 2020, Plaintiffs’ case was reassigned to this Court. See ECF No. 3. 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 administration fees totaling $400.

(a). A court may, however, in its 2 discretion, allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying these fees if the plaintiff seeks leave 3 to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees impose financial hardship. 4 See

(a); Escobeda v. Applebees,

(2015). Although 5 the statute does not specify the qualifications for proceeding IFP, the plaintiff’s affidavit 6 must allege poverty with some particularity. Escobeda,

. Granting a 7 plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when the affidavit demonstrates 8 that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff’s inability to afford the “necessities of life.” 9

The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute.

10 In Escobeda, for example, the filing fees constituted forty percent of the plaintiff’s 11 monthly income before factoring in her expenses.

. Taking into account the 12 plaintiff’s rent and debt payments, the filing fee would have required the entirety of two 13 months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that the plaintiff “would have to forgo 14 eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee.”

Under those 15 circumstances, the Ninth Circuit determined that paying the filing fee would constitute a 16 significant financial hardship to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court reversed the 17 magistrate judge’s ruling denying the plaintiff IFP status.

. 18 Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating 19 that payment of the filing fee would constitute an undue financial hardship. Plaintiffs’ 20 affidavit indicates their gross monthly income is $3,900.00, Mot. at 1, and that their net 21 monthly income is $2,500.000.

The have $55 in a checking account, id. at 2, and six 22 children, id., although it is unclear how many are dependents. Plaintiffs purport to have no 23 “housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments or other monthly expenses” or “[a]ny 24 debts or financial obligations.” Id. at 2. 25 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 1 In light of these representations, it appears Plaintiffs have more than sufficient 2 ||income to afford life’s necessities in addition to the filing fee. Indeed, given Plaintiffs’ 3 ||lack of monthly expenses and $2,500 net monthly income, there appears to be no reason 4 ||why Plaintiffs cannot afford the requisite $400 filing fee. See generally id. at 1-2. 5 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion pursuant to

(a) (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 9 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 10 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 11 prepay the filing fee mandated by

(a); and 12 3. Plaintiffs are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order 13 |/is electronically docketed to either (1) pay the entire $400 statutory and administrative 14 || filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP Motion alleging they are unable to pay the requisite fees. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 ||Dated: March 30, 2020 tt 18 pee Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3