Mesi et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 60

ORDERED that in forma pauperis status shall not continue on appeal. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/13/2016. ( E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. USCA case 16-15593 .) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

ERIC MESI AND BETTY MESI,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

vs.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK et al.,
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:15-cv-00555-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

10
11
12
13

This case arises out of a disputed property foreclosure. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
have violated numerous state and federal laws by engaging in fraudulent and unfair practices. On
March 10, 2016, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint, with leave to amend all but one

14
15

claim within thirty days. (See ECF No. 53). It also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

16

judgment, several motions to strike, and various other motions. (Id.). Plaintiff has appealed, and

17

the Court of Appeals has referred the case to the Court to determine whether in forma pauperis

18

status should continue on appeal.

19

The Court finds that in forma pauperis status should not continue on appeal, as the appeal
20
21

is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th

22

Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where a district court finds the

23

appeal to be frivolous). It is not clear what Plaintiffs are appealing. Presumably, they are

24

appealing the Court’s order dismissing their claims. The Court dismissed all but one of their

25

claims, which were difficult to decipher, because they contained only conclusory allegations or
26
27

vague and insufficient facts. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend those claims. The Court

28

dismissed Plaintiffs’ other claim—deceptive and unfair trade practices—because the applicable
1

1
2
3
4

Nevada statutes do not apply to real property transactions. The Court determined that amendment
could not cure the claim; thus, it dismissed the claim with prejudice.
The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment because it “merely
contains a recitation of some of its claims, raises new claims, and randomly cites case law and

5

statutes. The motion presents few, if any, relevant arguments to support its motion for summary
6
7
8

judgment.” (Order, 13, ECF No. 53). Plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and, thus, in forma pauperis
status should not continue on appeal.

9
10

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in forma pauperis status shall not continue on appeal.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
13th
Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.

14
15
16

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

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

2