SAHADATALLI v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING

D. New Jersey

SAHADATALLI v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided January 28, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-19980·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: TREVOR SAHADATALLI, : : Civil Action No. 21-19980 (JXN) (AME) Plaintiff, : : v. : MEMORANDUM : OPINION & ORDER SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, et al, : : Defendants. : : :

NEALS, District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on the in forma pauperis application (“IFP Application”) of Plaintiff Trevor Sahadatalli (“Plaintiff”) to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See IFP Appl., ECF No. 1-2. The Court must carefully review Plaintiff’s IFP Application and “if convinced that [the applicant] is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, the [C]ourt will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Douris v. Middletown Township, 293 F. App'x 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Deutsch v. United States, 61 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d. Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff’s IFP Application included a statement of his assets, income, and expenses. See generally IFP Appl. A review of Plaintiff’s IFP Application clearly shows that Plaintiff has the ability to pay or the assets necessary to pay the full filing fee of this lawsuit. In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates that he has rental income of $2,500.00 a month, two cars collectively valued at $27,000.00, a home worth $340,000.00, other real estate worth $700,000.00, and other assets worth $25,000.00. See IFP Appl. at 3. Plaintiff also indicates that he has $500.00 in a checking account and spends $2,000.00 a month on “[r]ecreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc.” Id. at 2, 5. Given that information, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has the ability to pay or the assets necessary to pay the full filing fee of this lawsuit. IT IS THEREFORE, on this 28th day of January, 2022, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1-2] is

DENIED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $402.00 within 14 days from the date of the Order to reopen the case without further action from the Court.

s/ Julien Xavier Neals JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: TREVOR SAHADATALLI, : : Civil Action No. 21-19980 (JXN) (AME) Plaintiff, : : v. : MEMORANDUM : OPINION & ORDER SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, et al, : : Defendants. : : :

NEALS, District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on the in forma pauperis application (“IFP Application”) of Plaintiff Trevor Sahadatalli (“Plaintiff”) to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See IFP Appl., ECF No. 1-2. The Court must carefully review Plaintiff’s IFP Application and “if convinced that [the applicant] is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, the [C]ourt will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Douris v. Middletown Township, 293 F. App'x 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Deutsch v. United States, 61 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d. Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff’s IFP Application included a statement of his assets, income, and expenses. See generally IFP Appl. A review of Plaintiff’s IFP Application clearly shows that Plaintiff has the ability to pay or the assets necessary to pay the full filing fee of this lawsuit. In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates that he has rental income of $2,500.00 a month, two cars collectively valued at $27,000.00, a home worth $340,000.00, other real estate worth $700,000.00, and other assets worth $25,000.00. See IFP Appl. at 3. Plaintiff also indicates that he has $500.00 in a checking account and spends $2,000.00 a month on “[r]ecreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc.” Id. at 2, 5. Given that information, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has the ability to pay or the assets necessary to pay the full filing fee of this lawsuit. IT IS THEREFORE, on this 28th day of January, 2022, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1-2] is

DENIED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $402.00 within 14 days from the date of the Order to reopen the case without further action from the Court.

s/ Julien Xavier Neals JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge

SAHADATALLI v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, (D.N.J. 2022).

Pincite

SAHADATALLI v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING (SAHADATALLI v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related