Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association

S.D. New York

Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association

DecidedOctober 9, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-07633

StatusUnknown

This text of Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association (Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Alena Magdalena Karakova NASLEDIE DAVUDOVA EXPRESS TRUST d/b/a Settlor/Trust Protector, Plaintiff, 24-CV-7633 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Only a natural person can proceed IFP – not an artificial entity, such as an estate.1 Plaintiff submitted the complaint without the filing fees or an IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or (if Plaintiff is a natural person) submit the attached IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-7633 (LTS). No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

1 See, e.g., Davis v. Yale New Haven Hosp., No. 3:16-CV-01578 (VLB), 2017 WL 6459499, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 11, 2017) (relying on In re Estate of Van Putten, 553 Fed. Appx. 328 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming that an estate is not eligible to proceed IFP)); Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993) (holding that only natural persons may proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Alena Magdalena Karakova NASLEDIE DAVUDOVA EXPRESS TRUST d/b/a Settlor/Trust Protector, Plaintiff, 24-CV-7633 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Only a natural person can proceed IFP – not an artificial entity, such as an estate.1 Plaintiff submitted the complaint without the filing fees or an IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or (if Plaintiff is a natural person) submit the attached IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-7633 (LTS). No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

1 See, e.g., Davis v. Yale New Haven Hosp., No. 3:16-CV-01578 (VLB), 2017 WL 6459499, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 11, 2017) (relying on In re Estate of Van Putten, 553 Fed. Appx. 328 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming that an estate is not eligible to proceed IFP)); Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993) (holding that only natural persons may proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Karakova v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karakova-v-jp-morgan-chase-bank-national-association-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack