Trice v. Huynh

Filing 21

ORDER Denying Defendant's 20 Motion for Return of Appeal Filing Fee. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

GERALDINE A. TRICE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

JAMES HUYNH,
7

Defendant.

8

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02424-GMN-VCF
ORDER

9

Pending before the Motion for Return of Appeal Filing Fee, (ECF No. 20), filed by pro

10
11

se Defendant Geraldine A. Trice (“Defendant”)1 against Plaintiff James Huynh (“Plaintiff”).2

12

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

13

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer on August 22, 2016, in the Justice

14
15

Court, Las Vegas Township, Clark County, in order to obtain possession of certain real

16

property. (Ex. 1 to Ex Parte Appl. (“Compl.”), ¶¶ 1–9, ECF No. 6). On October 17, 2016,

17

Defendant removed the eviction action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction.

18

(See Notice of Removal ¶ 10, ECF No. 1-1).
On November 30, 2017, the Court filed an Order, (ECF No. 8), remanding this case back

19
20

to state court, which Defendant appealed, (ECF No. 13). On June 14, 2017, the Ninth Circuit

21
22
23
24

1

It appears that Defendant’s Notice of Removal inadvertently switched the title of the parties. (See Mot. to Am.
1:21–22, ECF No. 4) (“This amendment is in order due to the Plaintiff and Defendant name . . . was [sic]
incorrect.”). Accordingly, the Court will refer to the parties as they were named prior to removal from state
court: Plaintiff James Huynh and Defendant Geraldine A. Trice.
2

25

In light of Defendant’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed her filings, holding them to
standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).

Page 1 of 2

1

dismissed Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 19). In the instant Motion,

2

Plaintiff seeks return of the appellate filing fee. (ECF No. 20).

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION
A filing fee is owed upon initiation of an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(e). The obligation to

5

pay the filing fee is not predicated upon the guarantee of some particular outcome. Defendant

6

filed the appeal, triggering the obligation to pay a filing fee, and Defendant is not due a refund

7

simply because it has not proceeded as she envisioned. Moreover, the district court merely

8

receives the appellate filing fee “on behalf of the court of appeals.” Id. The Court therefore

9

lacks the authority to order the return of a fee paid to the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court

10

denies Defendant’s Motion.

11

III.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Return of Appeal Filing Fee,

(ECF No. 20), is DENIED.
27
DATED this ____ day of June, 2017.

15
16
17

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2