1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 IN RE: WELSCORP, INC., ) 4 ) Debtor. ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00458-GMN 5 ) 6 WILLIAM CASTALDI & KARIN ) ORDER CASTALDI, ) 7 ) Appellants, ) 8 ) vs. ) 9 ) 10 LENARD SCHWARTZER, ) ) 11 Appellee. ) ) 12 13 On March 24, 2023, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit 14 (“BAP”) transferred the above-captioned case to this Court for the limited purpose of ruling on 15 the Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”), filed by 16 Appellants William Castaldi and Karin Castaldi (collectively, “Appellants”). (See BAP Order 17 Transferring Appeal at 2, ECF No. 3). Appellants have appealed the bankruptcy court’s orders 18 issued in an adversary proceeding, Case No. BK-S-19-18056-ABL (“Adversary Proceeding”). 19 (See id.). Specifically, Appellants seek review of the bankruptcy court’s Order granting 20 summary judgment and the Judgment against Appellants that followed. (See generally id.). 21 The Court denied Appellants’ initial IFP Motion because Appellants failed to allege 22 poverty with particularity, definiteness, or certainty. (Order 3:5–6, ECF No. 5). The Court 23 granted Appellants leave to file a renewed IFP Motion, (id. 3:10–11), which Appellants timely 24 filed, (Renewed IFP Mot., ECF No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS 25 Appellants’ Renewed IFP Motion. 1 Generally, “[a]ll parties instituting a bankruptcy appeal must pay a filing fee of $298.” 2 In re Barrett, No. 22-cv-222 JLS (WVG),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) 3 (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(3)(C)); see also Appeals Before the Bankruptcy Appellate 4 Panel of the Ninth Circuit § V(D), available at https://perma.cc/4Y6M-4AY4. However, “‘any 5 court of the United States’ may authorize an indigent party who cannot afford the expense of 6 pursuing an appeal to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis” (“IFP”) if the appeal is taken in 7 good faith. In re PSG Mortg. Lending Corp., No. 22-cv-04330-BLF,

, at *2 8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) (quoting

(a)(1)). A federal court may permit an 9 appellant to proceed IFP “if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 10 showing that he is unable to pay the required filing fee.” In re Barrett,

, at *1 11 (citing

(a)). 12 “A party need not ‘be absolutely destitute’ to proceed IFP.”

(quoting Adkins v. E.I. 13 DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948)). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP 14 status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. 15 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981)). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 17 alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”

18 “[T]here is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 19 is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Id. at 1235. 20 Here, Appellants attest that they have a joint monthly income of $4,014.00. (IFP Motion 21 at 7, ECF No. 4). Additionally, they have $104.00 in a checking or savings account. (Id. at 8). 22 Appellants provided a more complete list of their regular monthly expenses in their Renewed 23 IFP Motion, amounting to $3,599.28, leaving only $414.72 per month for food and other 24 necessities.1 (Renewed IFP Mot. ¶ 6). The Renewed IFP Motion also states that Appellants 25 1 This total sum for monthly expenses includes Appellants’ car payment, rent, utilities, insurance, phone 1 have each taken out cash advances against their next Social Security payments in the joint sum 2 of $1,046.00 to pay for necessary medical services.2 (Id. ¶¶ 4–5). 3 Although Appellants do not account for the cost of food and other necessities, the Court 4 finds that Appellants would be unable to afford the necessities of life—including food for two 5 people—with $116.72, the amount Appellants would be left with after paying the $298.00 fee. 6 And in light of Appellants’ cash advances, Appellants likely would have to make do on even 7 less. Accordingly, Appellants have adequately alleged that they cannot pay the $298.00 fee 8 with their combined surplus of $414.72 per month and still afford the necessities of life. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants’ Motion to proceed in their bankruptcy 10 appeal in forma pauperis under

, (ECF No. 6), is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transmit this Order to the 12 BAP. Because this case was transferred to this Court for the limited purpose of ruling on the 13 IFP Motion, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case. All 14 further proceedings shall take place in front of the BAP. 15 Dated this _ _ 7__ day of July, 2023. 16 17 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 payments, union dues, taxes, and prescription co-pays. (Renewed IFP Mot. ¶ 6). 2 Appellant William Castaldi is 81 years old and has both COPD and diabetes. (Renewed IFP Mot. ¶ 4). He is 24 further disabled from two bouts of COVID-19. (Id.). William takes eight prescriptions per day and sees his endocrinologist once every three months and his pulmonary specialist once every four months or as needed. (Id.). 25 Appellant Karin Castaldi is 79 years old and disabled but works despite her disability. (Id. ¶ 5). Karin also has COPD and diabetes. (Id.). She takes six prescriptions and three supplements per day, sees a doctor every month, and requires several medical tests she cannot afford. (Id.).