Epes v. Sidden
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-07716
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Epes v. Sidden, Judge Chen denied Epes’s request to appeal without fees, finding the appeal frivolous because it identified no appellate issue.
Cynthia Epes was denied permission to proceed without paying appellate fees. The order also directed the clerk to notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
In Epes v. Sidden, Cynthia Epes sued Curtis Sidden for breach of contract and related claims. The court had previously dismissed her amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, ordered arbitration. Epes then asked to appeal without paying court fees.
The court said an appeal without fees must identify the issues the person plans to raise and must have at least a nonfrivolous legal or factual basis. Although Epes showed that she could not afford the fees, she left the appeal-issues section of the required form blank and did not explain how the court had erred.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Epes’s motion to appeal without fees, finding that the appeal was frivolous because it had no arguable basis in fact or law. The court ordered the clerk to notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Epes v. Sidden · No. 3:21-cv-07716
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Cynthia Epes sued Curtis Sidden, identified in the opinion as the chief executive officer of American Credit Acceptance Company, for breach of contract and common counts. On January 12, 2022, the court granted Sidden’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Epes then asked for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning to appeal without prepaying court fees and costs.
Legal standard
Under federal law and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an applicant seeking to appeal without paying fees must provide information about the action or appeal, show an inability to pay, claim an entitlement to relief, and identify the issues intended for appeal. A trial court may not allow an appeal without fees if it certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is taken in good faith when it seeks review of at least one nonfrivolous issue. An issue is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Epes showed indigency but failed to identify any issue she intended to present on appeal. She left blank the portion of the required form asking for the appeal issues and did not explain how the court had erred. The court also considered the personal-jurisdiction issue underlying the earlier dismissal. It noted that the amended complaint contained no facts establishing personal jurisdiction over Sidden, that Epes did not timely oppose the motion, and that her response to the court’s order to show cause consisted of one sentence asserting that jurisdiction existed. After receiving an extension to address the case following contact with an attorney, she again filed no brief.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen DENIED Epes’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court found the appeal frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in fact or law. The order disposed of Docket No. 35 and directed the clerk to immediately notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed permission to appeal without paying fees and whether the appeal was frivolous, rather than deciding the underlying contract claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.