Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00056/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00056-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL E. MIKELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAN ESTEP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-00056-EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

Docket No. 75

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff Marshall E. Mikels moved to vacate this Court’s April 12, 

2012 Order dismissing his case. Docket No. 52. Plaintiff relied on the Supreme Court’s decision, 

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015), which held that a borrower 

need only provide written notice to the lender within three years of the date the transaction was 

consummated in order to exercise the right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act 

(TILA). On March 17, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, finding that the motion 

was untimely and that even applying Jesinoski, Plaintiff’s TILA claim would still have been timebarred. Docket No. 69 (March 17, 2016 Ord.). Plaintiff has filed an appeal of this Court’s March 

17, 2016 Order, and now moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

1

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court action who 

desires to appeal in forma pauperis must first file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(1). “If the district court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in writing.” Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the 

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The Ninth Circuit has construed 

 

1 While Plaintiff previously filed an appeal of the April 12, 2012 Order, a separate filing fee has 

been required for his appeal of the March 17, 2016 Order.

Case 3:12-cv-00056-EMC Document 76 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

“not taken in good faith” to mean frivolous. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (stating that “[i]f at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole”).

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s appeal frivolous. In his Notice of Appeal, Plaintiff makes 

two primary arguments. First, Plaintiff argues that the August 6, 2010 trustee’s sale could not 

extinguish his right of rescission because he had notified Defendants of his rescission prior to the 

sale (on March 29, 2010). Docket No. 71 (Not. of Appeal) at 6, 11. However, the Ninth Circuit 

has found that the rescission provision no longer applies once the property is sold, even if a valid 

notice of rescission was sent prior to the sale. Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 342 F.3d 899, 

901-02 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ibarra v. Loan City, No. 09–CV–02228–IEG (POR), 2010 WL 

1573811, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010) (although the borrower exercised his right of rescission 

within the three-year statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C § 1635(f) by providing notice, his right of 

rescission under TILA was extinguished upon the subsequent foreclosure sale of the property); 

Takushi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1084 (D. Haw. 2011) (finding that 

as to the question of whether “a timely TILA rescission request that predates the foreclosure sale of a 

property automatically preserves the borrower’s right to seek rescission post-sale,” the foreclosure sale 

of the property still extinguished the plaintiff’s right of rescission); cf. In re Dawson, 437 B.R. 15 

(Bankr. D.D.C. 2010) (“if a borrower has given timely notice of rescission and sued to enforce that 

right prior to the expiration of three years without having sold the property, the right of rescission has 

been expired, and does not later expire after three years have passed or the property is sold”) (emphasis 

added).

Second, Plaintiff argues that his motion to vacate was not time-barred because the April 12, 

2012 Order “was in conflict with the plainly stated TILA Law.” Not. of Appeal at 9. This Court 

agreed that Jesinoski held that a plaintiff is not required to file suit within three years of the notice 

of rescission, and that a borrower does not have to plead the ability to tender the value of the loan. 

March 17, 2016 Ord. at 7-8. However, the Court also found that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate was 

untimely, after applying the factors articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 

1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981). Id. at 5. Specifically, the Court found that there was a great interest 

Case 3:12-cv-00056-EMC Document 76 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

in finality, Plaintiff had failed to explain why he waited until one year after Jesinoski was decided 

to file his motion (although he indicated that he had learned about the opinion six months prior), 

and that vacating the prior order would be highly prejudicial to Defendants. Id. Plaintiff does not 

address these factors or findings in his Notice of Appeal.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Any further request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be directed to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and on the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals.

This order disposes of Docket No. 75.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00056-EMC Document 76 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3