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

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (4:17-cv-00077)

- 1 -

Joel Feldman (SBN 6216050) Local Counsel: Robert F. Cohen (SBN 160705)

joel@loevy.com 507 Polk Street, Suite 410

Loevy & Loevy San Francisco, CA 94102-3396

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Telephone: (415) 409-7611 

Chicago, IL 60607

Telephone: (312) 243-5900

Fax: (312) 243-5920

See Signature Page for

List of Parties Represented

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

KEVIN QUILLINAN )

) Case No. 4:17-cv-00077

Plaintiff, )

)DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 

)PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

)FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

) Judge: The Honorable Kandis A. Westmore

v. )

)

AINSWORTH, et al. ) Action Filed:01/06/2017

) Amended Complaint Filed: 03/20/2017

)

Defendants )

Defendants SRG 414 Lesser LLC, Russell Ainsworth, Bruce Goldstone, Jon Loevy, 

Michael Kanovitz, Ashley Peterson, Richard Silverstein, Andrew Thayer, Daniel Bornstein, 

Dianne Murphy, Silverstein Realty Group LLC, SRG Manager LLC, Hayden Manager LLC, 

Daniel Fineman, Zivorad Zivanovic, Gospa Lukic, Daniel Cheung, and Dmitry Shkolnikov 

(collectively, “Defendants”), hereby oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

Appeal (Dkt. No. 108), and in support state the following:

1. On May 10, 2018, this Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 

35 & 43) by issuing an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice and 

Case 4:17-cv-00077-KAW Document 110 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (4:17-cv-00077)

- 2 -

entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 102).1

2. On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Rule 59 Motion for New Trial, Or in the 

Alternative, a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Westmore’s Order Dismissing With Prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Claim (Dkt. No. 104). Defendants filed a response in opposition to this motion on June 

6, 2018 (Dkt. No. 105) and – earlier today – the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 109). 

Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis on June 11, 2018 

(Dkt. No. 108).

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “An appeal may not be taken in forma 

pauperis if the trail court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An Appeal is in 

“good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “nonfrivolous.” Hooker v. American 

Airlines, 302 F. 3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is “frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis 

in fact or law.” Adams v. Vivo, Inc., No. C 12-01854 DMR, 2012 WL 6131072, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 10, 2012) (citing O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Calloway 

v. Contra Costa Cty. Jail Corr. Officers, No. C01-2689SBA, 2007 WL 831817, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 19, 2007); Ortega v. Barbasa, No. 13-17074, 2014 WL 460019, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 

2014); Emrit v. Yahoo! Inc., No. C 13-5951 SBA, 2014 WL 3841015, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 

2014). “The § 1915(a)(3) determination remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court after the 

filing of the appeal as a step that aids in the appeal.” Ha v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. C 09-5281 JL, 

2010 WL 3219301, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) (citing In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 904 (9th

Cir. 2005)).

4. As set forth in Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 35 and 43), replies in 

support thereof (Dkt. Nos. 52 and 59), and this Court’s Order and entry of judgment dismissing 

the case with prejudice (Dkt. No. 102) (all of which Defendants hereby incorporate into this 

Opposition), Plaintiff’s purported RICO action has no arguable basis in fact or law. This Court 

acknowledged the frivolous and baseless nature of this action by finding that this case was ripe to 

 

1 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss had also previously been granted by this Court on October 5, 2017, but the Ninth 

Circuit vacated this judgment and order and remanded the case by virtue of some defendants remaining unserved. 

Case 4:17-cv-00077-KAW Document 110 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (4:17-cv-00077)

- 3 -

be dismissed with prejudice without need for oral argument, noting that amendment would be 

“futile”: “the undersigned GRANTS the motions to dismiss without leave to amend, because any 

amendment would be futile” (Dkt. No. 102 at 1). 

5. In contending with this litigation, Defendants have incurred significant costs, and 

these costs will continue to accrue in having to expend considerable time and resources to achieve 

the inevitable result of dismissing an utterly frivolous appeal. In a sprawling and rambling 

Complaint in which he named 67 defendants, Plaintiff foisted his meritless allegations upon 

individuals and entities with no connection to Plaintiff in a deliberate attempt designed to extort a 

nuisance settlement from and to inflict maximum collateral damage and disruption upon any 

entity or person connected to Defendants who dared to legally terminate his wife’s lease. 

Quillinan’s vengeful exploitation of the judicial process has wrought some of its intended effects, 

as for instance, Defendant SRG 414 Lesser LLC has been billed over $30,000 in legal costs by 

counsel for Defendant KeyPoint Credit Union for work performed in conjunction with this 

lawsuit. Additionally, while many of the Defendants are attorneys (and, as a result, have been 

able to handle much of the legal work themselves), those Defendants have certainly expended 

well over $100,000 in lost billable time as a result of defending themselves against Plaintiff 

Quillinan’s baseless lawsuit.

6. Plaintiff himself seemingly admits that – as pled – his case has no merit (and, 

accordingly, his appeal will be nothing more than a colossal waste of time, resources and money). 

In his recently filed motion seeking reconsideration of the latest dismissal of his meritless claims, 

Plaintiff stated that he “has recently realized after gaining further information and performing 

more research, that plaintiff’s claims may have been more properly pleaded under 18 U.S.C. 

1962(a).....” Dkt. No. 104 at 1. Earlier today, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, finding that -

even if had pled his claims differently – he still lacked standing to bring any RICO claim. Dkt. 

109 at 2. 

7. Given that Quillinan has no chance of success on appeal (as even he 

acknowledges), he must not be permitted to proceed cost-free, plowing ahead unrestrained and 

Case 4:17-cv-00077-KAW Document 110 Filed 06/14/18 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (4:17-cv-00077)

- 4 -

with reckless abandon to impose punishing externalities on parties that have not done him the 

slightest harm, while Defendants alone shoulder the burden of a heavy nuisance tax in time and 

money to formally dispose of an appeal that is a non-starter. The Court must halt Quillinan’s 

unabated abuses by declaring what is axiomatic at this point: that this appeal is most certainly not 

taken in good faith. 

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons stated above and in Defendants Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 

Nos. 35 and 43), replies in support thereof (Dkt. Nos. 52 and 59), this Court’s Order and entry of 

judgment dismissing the case with prejudice (Dkt. No. 102 and 103), and this Court’s Order 

denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 109), Defendants respectfully request 

that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), certify in writing that this appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis as it is 

not taken in good faith.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joel Feldman

Joel Feldman

Pro Se and as Attorney for Defendants SRG 

414 Lesser LLC, Russell Ainsworth, Bruce 

Goldstone, Jon Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, 

Ashley Peterson, Richard Silverstein, 

Andrew Thayer, Daniel Bornstein,

Dianne Murphy, Silverstein Realty Group 

LLC, SRG Manager LLC, and Hayden 

Manager LLC, Daniel Fineman Dmitry 

Shkolnikov, Zivorad Zivanovic, and Gospa 

Lukic

Case 4:17-cv-00077-KAW Document 110 Filed 06/14/18 Page 4 of 5
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

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (4:17-cv-00077)

- 5 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on June 14, 2018, this Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal was served upon all parties of record

via the ECF system and via email.

/s/ Joel Feldman 

 Attorney for Defendants

Joel Feldman

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

Case 4:17-cv-00077-KAW Document 110 Filed 06/14/18 Page 5 of 5