Paul Weldon v. Dyer et al

Filing 170

ORDER DENYING 169 Request for Refund of Filing Fee signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/13/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL WELDON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
REFUND OF FILING FEE

v.
ECF NO. 169

14
15

JERRY DYER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff Paul Weldon (“Plaintiff”) filed a request for a refund of the

18 filing fee he paid at the time he filed the complaint in Paul Weldon v. Economy Towing, et al.,
19 Case No. 1:14-cv-00549---SKO. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
20 request for a refund.
21

Plaintiff filed his first action on April 15, 2013—Paul Weldon v. Jerry Dyer, et al., Case

22 No. 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB. Plaintiff filed a second action on April 18, 2014—Paul Weldon
23 v. Economy Towing, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00549---SKO. Both actions involved the same
24 factual predicate arising from an April 18, 2011 incident where Plaintiff was pulled over by a
25 Fresno police officer. However, the two actions named different parties as defendants and raised
26 different legal claims.
27

On June 12, 2014, the Court consolidated the two actions pursuant to Federal Rule of

28 Civil Procedure 42. (ECF No. 56.) Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants in the

1

1 consolidated action on April 21, 2015 when the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
2 judgment. (ECF No. 148.)
Plaintiff now seeks a refund of the filing fee he paid in the second action filed on April

3

4 18, 2014.

Plaintiff argues that two filing fees are not necessary because the case was

5 consolidated “and one filing fee should suffice.”
Court filing fees are set and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, et seq. Notably, nothing in

6

7 Section 1914 authorizes a refund of a filing fee in actions which are consolidated. The Ninth
8 Circuit has acknowledged, in the bankruptcy context, that “[t]here is no refund if separately filed
9 cases are consolidated.” In re Rabin, 359 B.R. 242, 248 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff cites no
10 authority supporting his request for a refund. Accordingly, the Court will deny the request.
Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a refund

11

12 of his filing fee is DENIED (ECF No. 169).
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated:

July 13, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2