Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-03117
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak, Judge Menendez denied Donald Mashak’s request to appeal without fees because the remand order was not appealable.
Donald Mashak’s request to appeal without paying the appellate filing fee was denied; the earlier order remanding the case to Minnesota state court remained in place.
What happened
In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak, the court had previously sent the case back to Minnesota state court because it lacked authority to hear the case. Donald Mashak then appealed and asked to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee.
The court said Mashak appeared financially eligible, but an appeal cannot proceed without fees if the trial court determines that it is not made in good faith. The court found the appeal frivolous because federal law generally bars appeals of orders sending a removed case back to state court for lack of authority to hear it.
Judge Menendez denied Mashak’s application to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. The court did not change its earlier order sending the case to state court.
The detailed version
- Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak · No. 0:22-cv-03117
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 22, 2023
Background
On February 8, 2023, the court ordered that this case be sent back to the Minnesota state court from which it had been removed, concluding that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case. On March 13, 2023, Defendant Donald Mashak filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning he asked to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Reasoning
The court stated that Mashak appeared financially eligible based on the information in his application. But federal law also bars an appeal without payment of fees when the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis.
The court found that Mashak’s appeal was frivolous because the earlier remand order was not appealable. Federal law provides that an order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed generally cannot be reviewed on appeal or otherwise when the remand is based on a procedural defect or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that a prior related proceeding had reached the same conclusion concerning an earlier remand of this case.
Disposition
The court denied Donald Mashak’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The order did not alter the earlier remand to state court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.