Free Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01120-JM-RBB

Document 3

Filed 06/26/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LINCOLN MUTUAL MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants. SEAN CARROLL, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08cv1120 JM(RBB) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On or about June 24, 2008 Plaintiff Sean Carroll commenced an action seeking, among other things, to rescind the November 2, 2005 loan agreement with Defendant Fremont Investment and Loan Co. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act and California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Plaintiff also submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court hereby denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, subject to a further showing. Plaintiff declares that he is currently employed with a salary of $2,000 per month. He identifies no other source of income. The only expense identified by Plaintiff consists of a $340 per month child support payment. With respect to assets, Plaintiff represents that he owns a home in Carlsbad, California encumbered by a mortgage in the amount of $750,000. Based upon a review of the declaration filed in support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court requests additional financial information. Plaintiff is requested to identify total
-108cv1120

Case 3:08-cv-01120-JM-RBB

Document 3

Filed 06/26/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

household income, including any spousal or cohabitant income; monthly expenses; and the estimated value of his home in Carlsbad. The court also requests that Plaintiff provide further detail concerning the owner or owners of the Carlsbad property. Plaintiff represents that the Carlsbad property was awarded to his former spouse in a marital settlement agreement. In the event the property is owned in whole of in part by Plaintiff's former spouse, the court notes that she may be an indispensable party to this action and her income may need to be considered to properly assess Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis In sum, the court denies the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, subject to a further showing. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 26, 2008 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
cc: Plaintiff only

-2-

08cv1120