UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MARCIA LEOLA MUÑOZ-SIMS, Civil No. 24-4544 (JRT/SGE) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DEREK SCHROEDER, Branch Manager, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO One Main Financial; ONE MAIN PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON FINANCIAL, LLC; ONE MAIN FINANCIAL APPEAL SOLUTIONS; and TRITON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

Marcia Leola Muñoz-Sims, 455 Central Avenue Southeast, Suite 725, Minneapolis, MN 55414, pro se Plaintiff.

Natalia S. Kruse, HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants.

Plaintiff Marcia Muñoz-Sims brought these consolidated actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Defendants One Main Financial, LLC, One Main Financial Solutions, OneMain employee Derek Schroeder, and Triton Insurance Company (collectively, the “Defendants”). Defendants moved to stay the case and enforce an arbitration agreement between the parties.1 The Court granted the motion, concluding

Proceed IFP on Appeal, Sept. 8, 2025, Docket No. 60.)

A party seeking to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith. Id. § 1915(a)(3).

Muñoz-Sims has satisfied both requirements to proceed IFP on appeal. First, Muñoz-Sims’ application demonstrates that she is unable to pay the full filing fee.

Second, even though the Court believes that Muñoz-Sims is unlikely to be successful,3 the

Court finds that Mufioz-Sims’ appeal is not taken in bad faith—and thus, Mufoz-Sims has a right to be heard on appeal. The Court will therefore grant Mufioz-Sims’ application to proceed IFP.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mufioz-Sims’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 60] is GRANTED.

DATED: December 2, 2025 W. Wehadinn— at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM United States District Judge The Court reasoned that “staying rather than dismissing a suit [subject to arbitration] comports with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts,” given that the “FAA provides mechanisms for courts with proper jurisdiction to assist parties in arbitration.” /d. As a result, an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable unless the district court certifies a controlling question of law under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which the Court has not done here. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b); see also Spizzirri, 601 U.S. at 478. Because Mufioz-Sims’ case has been stayed (and no final judgment has been entered), the Court does not consider its previous order compelling arbitration immediately appealable. -3-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MARCIA LEOLA MUÑOZ-SIMS, Civil No. 24-4544 (JRT/SGE) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DEREK SCHROEDER, Branch Manager, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO One Main Financial; ONE MAIN PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON FINANCIAL, LLC; ONE MAIN FINANCIAL APPEAL SOLUTIONS; and TRITON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

Marcia Leola Muñoz-Sims, 455 Central Avenue Southeast, Suite 725, Minneapolis, MN 55414, pro se Plaintiff.

Natalia S. Kruse, HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants.

Plaintiff Marcia Muñoz-Sims brought these consolidated actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Defendants One Main Financial, LLC, One Main Financial Solutions, OneMain employee Derek Schroeder, and Triton Insurance Company (collectively, the “Defendants”). Defendants moved to stay the case and enforce an arbitration agreement between the parties.1 The Court granted the motion, concluding

Proceed IFP on Appeal, Sept. 8, 2025, Docket No. 60.)

A party seeking to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith. Id. § 1915(a)(3).

Muñoz-Sims has satisfied both requirements to proceed IFP on appeal. First, Muñoz-Sims’ application demonstrates that she is unable to pay the full filing fee.

Second, even though the Court believes that Muñoz-Sims is unlikely to be successful,3 the

Court finds that Mufioz-Sims’ appeal is not taken in bad faith—and thus, Mufoz-Sims has a right to be heard on appeal. The Court will therefore grant Mufioz-Sims’ application to proceed IFP.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mufioz-Sims’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 60] is GRANTED.

DATED: December 2, 2025 W. Wehadinn— at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM United States District Judge The Court reasoned that “staying rather than dismissing a suit [subject to arbitration] comports with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts,” given that the “FAA provides mechanisms for courts with proper jurisdiction to assist parties in arbitration.” /d. As a result, an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable unless the district court certifies a controlling question of law under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which the Court has not done here. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b); see also Spizzirri, 601 U.S. at 478. Because Mufioz-Sims’ case has been stayed (and no final judgment has been entered), the Court does not consider its previous order compelling arbitration immediately appealable. -3-