Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No.: 25-CV-1593 JLS (JLB) As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 12 Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for ORDER: 13 Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO 14 Certificates Series 2006-AR7 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 15 formerly known as The Bank of New York AND 16 Plaintiff, (2) DENYING MOTIONS TO 17 v. COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS 18 NITA CHIDESTER, et al.

19 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3) 20 NITA CHIDESTER, et al., 21 Counterclaimants, 22 v. 23 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 24 As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 25 Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II 26 Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through 27 Certificates Series 2006-AR7 28 1 formerly known as The Bank of New York, et al. 2 Counter-Defendants. 3 4 Presently before the Court are Counterclaimants Nita Chidester’s and Cynthia 5 Chidester’s Motions to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas (“Mots.,” ECF 6 Nos. 1, 2) and Counterclaimant Cynthia Chidester’s Application to Proceed in Forma 7 Pauperis (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 3). 8 On June 17, 2025, Third Party Katherina A. Davis aka Katherina Grant (“Grant”) 9 filed a Motion for Protective Order in the underlying case in the Central District of 10 California, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nita Chidester, et al., 8:23-cv-02281-JWH (JDEx), 11 “seeking an order protecting her from compliance with a deposition subpoena issued by 12 the Defendants Nita and Cynthia Chidester.” ECF No. 4 (“Not.”) at 1. Thereafter, 13 Counterclaimants Nita Chidester and Cynthia Chidester filed with this Court motions to 14 compel Grant’s compliance with the deposition subpoena. See generally Docket. Cynthia 15 Chidester also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See generally id. 16 On June 26, 2025, Grant filed a Notice of Entry of Protective Order Issued by Central 17 District of California, asserting that Counterclaimants’ Motions were moot based on an 18 order issued by the Central District of California granting her Motion for Protective Order. 19 Not. at 2. 20 The Court first considers Cynthia Chidester’s IFP Application. All parties instituting 21 a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, other than a petition 22 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 23 may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave 24 to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).1 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 28 Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 1 Section 1915(a)(1) provides: 2 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the 3 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 4 by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of 5 all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 6 7 As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant IFP 8 status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. See Cal. 9 Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically 10 requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the 11 affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds 12 by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 13 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 14 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont 15 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to 16 obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 17 1960). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 18 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 19 Here, Cynthia Chidester’s IFP Application establishes that she has an income of 20 about $1,196 a month in retirement benefits. IFP Appl. at 2. Cynthia Chidester reports 21 having $500.00 in cash and owning a motor vehicle worth approximately $3,500. Id. at 2– 22 3. Cynthia Chidester’s monthly expenses of $2,455.00 exceed her monthly income. See 23 id. at 4–5. The Court therefore concludes that she has adequately demonstrated that paying 24 the $405 filing fee would result in her inability to afford the necessities of life. 25 The Court next considers Counterclaimants’ Motions to Compel Compliance with 26 Deposition Subpoenas. In the underlying case, the Central District granted a protective 27 order for Grant from complying with the subpoenas. See Not. at 3–4; Bank of N.Y. Mellon 28 v. Nita Chidester et al., 23-CV-2281 JWH (JDE), ECF No. 75 (“The deposition and request 1 || for documents under the subpoenas directed to [Grant] shall not proceed.”). Therefore, the 2 || Court finds that the instant Motions are moot in light of the Central District’s Order. 3 Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court DENIES Counterclaimants Nita 4 || Chidester’s and Cynthia Chidester’s Motions to Compel Compliance with Deposition 5 ||Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 1, 2) and GRANTS Counterclaimant Cynthia Chidester’s 6 || Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3). As this concludes the litigation 7 this matter, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: December 1, 2025 : 10 ja Janis L. Sammartino il United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28