United States District Court, D. Hawaii
RICHARD K. TAYLOR, SR., through his personal representative MELODY K. TAYLOR LINDSEY, MELODY K. TAYLOR LINDSEY, individually, RICHARD K. TAYLOR, JR., DONNETTA TAYLOR, Plaintiffs,
PATRICIA INGOGLIA, Trustee of the Donald and Patricia Ingoglia Family Trust, ESTATE OF DONALD INGOGLIA, DOE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF RICHARD
K. TAYLOR, JR.'S MOTION FOR RULE 60 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge.
hearing was held on Plaintiff Richard K. Taylor, Jr.'s
("Mr. Taylor") Motion for Rule 60 Relief From
Judgment or Order ("Motion") on March 7, 2016, at
10:00 a.m. Mr. Taylor appeared telephonically on behalf of
himself; Robert John Crudele, Esq. and Francis R. Alcain,
Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs Richard K. Taylor, Sr., through
his personal representative Melody K. Taylor Lindsey, Melody
K. Taylor Lindsey, individually, and Donnetta Taylor
(collectively "Remaining Plaintiffs"); Randall Y.
Yamamoto, Esq. appeared for Defendants; Keith K. Hiraoka,
Esq. appeared on behalf of non-party Crudele & De Lima. After
carefully considering the arguments of the parties, the
supporting and opposing memoranda, declarations, and exhibits
attached thereto, the record established in this action, and
the relevant legal authority, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS
that Mr. Taylor's Motion be DENIED.
action arises out of an automobile accident that caused the
death of Mr. Taylor's father, Richard K. Taylor, Sr. ECF
No. 1. Mr. Taylor, Melody K. Taylor Lindsey, individually and
as the personal representative of Richard K. Taylor, Sr., and
Donnetta Taylor sued the estate of the driver of the vehicle
that struck the vehicle in which Richard K. Taylor, Sr. was a
passenger. Id . The Taylor family was represented by
the law firm Crudele & De Lima. Id . A Settlement on
the Record between all parties was held on August 13, 2014.
ECF No. 17. Mr. Taylor participated telephonically in the
Settlement on the Record. Id . On February 5, 2015,
the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice
of all claims and all parties. ECF No. 20. Nearly a year
later, Mr. Taylor filed the instant Motion, arguing that his
counsel, Crudele & De Lima, fraudulently obtained his
signature on a single page document and used it to enter into
the settlement agreement without his full consent. ECF No.
21. Crudele & De Lima subsequently filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel for Mr. Taylor, which was granted by the Court on
February 11, 2016. ECF Nos. 24, 26.
unclear from Mr. Taylor's Motion whether he argues that
the order dismissing this case should be set aside because
his former counsel, Crudele & De Lima, improperly distributed
his settlement proceeds to others or because counsel
fraudulently entered into the settlement agreement without
his full knowledge and consent. ECF No. 21-4 at 3-5. Mr.
Taylor also requests "relief from court costs, "
which the Court construes as a request to proceed in forma
pauperis, and further requests that the Court provide copies
and service. ECF Nos. 21-2, 21-3. The Remaining Plaintiffs
argue that the Motion should be denied because Mr. Taylor
participated in mediation, agreed to the final settlement
figure, and was present telephonically at the Settlement on
the Record. ECF No. 34-1 at 2-3; see also ECF No. 34-2 Â¶Â¶
5-9, Declaration of Francis R. Alcain. Defendants argue that
Mr. Taylor acknowledged his agreement to the settlement and
that his only dispute relates to the receipt of his share of
the proceeds. ECF No. 28-1, Declaration of Randall Y.
Yamamoto. For the reasons discussed below, the Court FINDS
and RECOMMENDS that Mr. Taylor's Motion be DENIED.
the Court addresses Mr. Taylor's requests to proceed in
forma pauperis and for the court to provide free copies and
service. Second, the Court addresses Mr. Taylor's
arguments regarding his Rule 60 Motion. It is not clear from
Mr. Taylor's Motion whether he seeks relief under Rule 60
because he disputes the distribution of settlement funds or
because he disputes his agreement to the settlement itself.
Although Mr. Taylor represented at the hearing that his
argument is that he did not agree to the settlement because
he lacked sufficient knowledge of its terms, the Court
nonetheless addresses both arguments.
Court GRANTS Mr. Taylor's Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and DENIES His Request for the Court to Provide Free
Copies and Service.
28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(a)(1), a litigant may petition the court for
authorization to proceed in forma pauperis. A litigant
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must provide an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed
and that the litigant is unable to pay the fees associated
with litigating the action. See 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(a)(1).
"[A]n affidavit is sufficient which states that one
cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the
costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents
with the necessities of life." Adkins v. E.I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948);
see also United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940
(9th Cir. 1981) (the affidavit must "state the facts as
to affiant's poverty with some particularity,
definiteness and certainty").
granting of in forma pauperis status is only applicable to
certain court fees and litigation costs. Generally, filing
fees and fees for service of process for the summons and
complaint are paid by the Court for persons who have been
granted in forma pauperis status. All other costs, including
copying fees, are not covered by the granting of in forma
pauperis status. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,
211 (9th Cir. 1989) (denying waiver of witness fees for
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis).
Mr. Taylor states that he is not employed, has no income,
owns no assets, and has a "spendable" total of
$12.09 in his prisoner account. See ECF No. 21-2. The Court
finds that Mr. Taylor has sufficiently shown his poverty and
therefore GRANTS Mr. Taylor's request to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, as discussed above, Mr. Taylor's in
forma pauperis status does not cover copying fees. Further,
there is no filing fee associated with Mr. Taylor's
Motion and the only "service" necessary is service
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, which is not covered
by in forma pauperis status. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5; see also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3) (providing that the court will provide
service of a complaint and summons for a
plaintiff proceeding forma pauperis). Therefore, the Court
DENIES Mr. Taylor's request that the court provide free
copies and service.
Court RECOMMENDS That Mr. Taylor's Motion for Rule 60
Relief From Judgment or Order Be DENIED.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the court may
relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
for mistake, fraud, or for any other reason that justifies
relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (3), (6). As discussed above,
the Court will address both arguments presented in Mr.
Taylor's Motion Should Be Denied to the Extent He
Disputes the ...