Kassab v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-02422 · 2020-12-23 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: William Q. Hayes (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:18Z · confidence high

The court considered Plaintiff Joandark Kassab's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against MUFG Union Bank, N.A. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff's income and lack of expenses did not establish an inability to pay the $400 filing fee, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the fee by February 22, 2021, or the case would be closed.

What the court decided	The model
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis denied “The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed by Plaintiff Joandark Kassab (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.”	agree with court The court applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez v. Cook) that IFP status is a privilege, not a right. The court relied on the plaintiff's own affidavit, which stated she has a monthly income of $1,300, $500 in savings, a house, and no monthly expenses or debt. The court compared this to a prior district court order (de Beauvoir’s) where plaintiffs with similar financial profiles (lower income, no expenses) were denied IFP. While the court's reliance on 'lack of expenses' is a common shorthand in district court orders for IFP denials, it is legally imprecise because a plaintiff with $1,300/month income necessarily has expenses (food, shelter, utilities) even if not itemized. However, given the low income and the specific instruction to pay the fee or face dismissal, the denial is a defensible exercise of discretion under the statute, as the plaintiff did not affirmatively demonstrate an inability to pay the specific $400 fee despite having liquid assets and income. The order is procedurally sound in its outcome, though the reasoning regarding 'lack of expenses' is a gap in the analysis of actual financial hardship.

What the court decided

The model

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis denied

“The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed by Plaintiff Joandark Kassab (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.”

agree with court
The court applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez v. Cook) that IFP status is a privilege, not a right. The court relied on the plaintiff's own affidavit, which stated she has a monthly income of $1,300, $500 in savings, a house, and no monthly expenses or debt. The court compared this to a prior district court order (de Beauvoir’s) where plaintiffs with similar financial profiles (lower income, no expenses) were denied IFP. While the court's reliance on 'lack of expenses' is a common shorthand in district court orders for IFP denials, it is legally imprecise because a plaintiff with $1,300/month income necessarily has expenses (food, shelter, utilities) even if not itemized. However, given the low income and the specific instruction to pay the fee or face dismissal, the denial is a defensible exercise of discretion under the statute, as the plaintiff did not affirmatively demonstrate an inability to pay the specific $400 fee despite having liquid assets and income. The order is procedurally sound in its outcome, though the reasoning regarding 'lack of expenses' is a gap in the analysis of actual financial hardship.

The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is 'sound with gaps.' It correctly identifies the statutory standard and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority regarding the nature of IFP status. However, the reasoning that the plaintiff is not entitled to IFP 'given her monthly income and lack of expenses' is a logical gap. A person with $1,300/month income cannot have 'no expenses' in a legal or factual sense; they must have living costs. The court likely meant that the plaintiff did not *itemize* expenses or that her income exceeds her *stated* needs, but the phrasing is imprecise. Despite this gap, the result is defensible because the plaintiff failed to provide a detailed affidavit showing that her income is insufficient to cover both living expenses and the $400 filing fee, and she possesses liquid assets ($500) and real property. The order provides a clear deadline and consequence (dismissal), which is procedurally appropriate.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOANDARK KASSAB, individually, and Case No.: 3:20-cv-02422-WQH-BGS as a trustee of the Kassab Family 2014 12 Trust, ORDER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., 16 Defendant. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 19 filed by Plaintiff Joandark Kassab. (ECF No. 2). 20 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Joandark Kassab initiated this action by filing a 22 Complaint against Defendant MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, 23 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion for Leave to 24 Proceed IFP”). (ECF No. 2). 25 RULING OF THE COURT 26 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 1 $400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 2 failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To 4 proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 5 (9th Cir. 1965). 6 Plaintiff states in her application to proceed in forma pauperis that she is “unable to 7 pay the fees of this proceeding . . . .” (ECF No. 2 at 1). Plaintiff states that she is currently 8 retired and collecting monthly social security in the amount of $1,300. See id. at 2-3. 9 Plaintiff states that she has $500 in a Bank of the West checking account and a wedding 10 ring valued at $250. See id. Plaintiff states that she owns a house, that her deceased 11 husband used to pay $500 towards the mortgage, and that she does not know the house’s 12 value. See id. at 3. Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that she does not have monthly expenses 13 and has no debt. See id. After considering Plaintiff’s application, the Court concludes that 14 Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis given her monthly income and lack of 15 expenses. See e.g., de Beauvoir’s v. Advanta Bank Corp., No. 07CV1972 WQH (POR), 16 2007 WL 4219447, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) (“In their accompanying affidavit, 17 Plaintiffs Elizabeth E. de Beauvoir’s and Gerard L. de Beauvoir’s state that they are not 18 employed and together receive approximately $910.00 per month. Plaintiffs also indicate 19 a checking or savings account balance of $10.00, and ownership of one vehicle, a 2000 Kia 20 Sportage Van. Plaintiffs’ affidavit indicates that they do not have monthly expenses, and 21 have no debt. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma paupers and the 22 accompanying affidavit, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are not entitled to proceed in 23 forma pauperis given their monthly income and lack of expenses.”). 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed by Plaintiff Joandark 2 || Kassab (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the requisite filing fee of $400.00 on 3 || or before February 22, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to submit payment on or before February 22, 4 2021, the Court will close this case. 5 Dated: December 23, 2020 BE: eg Ze. A a 6 Hon, William Q. Hayes 5 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28