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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?