Horvath v. Solar Refrigeration

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-30343
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-30343 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 24-30343 May 29, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Michelle Horvath,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Solar Refrigeration & Appliance Service, Incorporated,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:22-CV-4463 ______________________________

Before Jones, Duncan and Douglas, Circuit Judges Per Curiam:* Michelle Horvath moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Solar Refrigeration & Appliance Service, Incorporated (Solar). Her IFP motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-30343 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2025

No. 24-30343

certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). While represented by counsel, Horvath failed to respond to Solar’s motion for summary judgment, which was supported by competent evidence; she has, therefore, forfeited her challenges to the court’s summary judgment ruling, and we do not address them. See Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 468-69 (5th Cir. 2010); Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397-99 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, the unconditional order granting her motion to voluntarily dismiss certain defendants is not appealable. See Coliseum Square Ass’n, Inc. v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 249 (5th Cir. 2006); Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 580 F.2d 126, 129-31 (5th Cir. 1978). In sum, Horvath has not shown that the appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, and her appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, her IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.