Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH CURTZWILER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CLARK VANDEVENTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0315 MCE AC 

ORDER 

 Defendants Clark Vandeventer and Monica Vandeventer, having removed this action from 

State court, have requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. ECF No. 2 (original motion), 6 (amended motion). The IFP application was referred to 

the undersigned by the district judge presiding over this case. See ECF No. 4.1

 Documents attached to the 24-page IFP application show that defendants have a gross 

annual income of $181,450 per year, and a net cash flow (that is, take-home pay less expenses) 

every month of $4,470. The undersigned concludes that the in forma pauperis application does 

not make the showing of poverty that is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

 Defendant Clark Vandeventer asserts that he has a twice-per-month gross pay of $5,417, 

 

1

 Defendants filed an amended IFP application after the initial referral, but the undersigned 

understands that the referral is still in effect, and that it applies to the amended motion. 

Case 2:16-cv-00315-MCE-AC Document 10 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

with a twice-per-month take-home pay of $2,066.57.2 ECF No. 6 at 3. This translates to a 

monthly gross pay of $11,737 ($140,842 per year), with a monthly take-home pay of $4,477.56 

($53,731 per year). 

 However, defendants have attached a pay stub for Clark Vandeventer, which appears to 

contradict these numbers. The pay stub indicates that Clark Vandeventer’s “gross earnings” – 

which includes his “regular” pay plus several other items – was $6,508.08 for the two week 

period of “01/16/16 to 01/31/16,” and that his “net pay” for that two-week period – as reflected in 

his pay stub – was $4,168.75. ECF No. 6-1 at 3. Thus, according to the pay stub, defendant’s 

gross monthly pay is $14,100.84 ($169,210 per year), with a monthly take-home pay of $9,032 

($108,388 per year). Defendants’ IFP application offers no explanation for the apparent 

discrepancy between Clark Vanderventer’s asserted pay and the pay shown on his pay stub. 

 Defendant Monica Vandeventer discloses that she has a gross monthly pay of $1,020 

($12,240 per year) and a monthly take-home pay of $727 ($8,724 per year). 

 Defendants’ combined take-home pay (using the numbers from Clark Vandeventer’s pay 

stub) is $9,759 per month. That does not qualify them for in forma pauperis status, even after 

their stated “total expenses” of $5,289 per month are considered. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6) is DENIED. 

DATED: June 7, 2016 

 

2

 Clark Vandeventer uses the term “bi-monthly.” A paycheck annexed to the IFP application 

confirms that Clark Vandeventer’s “regular” pay for the two-week period of “01/16/16 to 

01/31/16” was $5,416.66. 

Case 2:16-cv-00315-MCE-AC Document 10 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2