What is a Request to Waive Court Fees?

“[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.) “Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Government Code sections 68926 or 68927 must be accompanied at the time of filing by the required fee or an application for a waiver of court fees under rule 8.26.” (CRC 8.25(c).)

However, CCP §1010.6(b) states: “A trial court may adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents, subject to rules adopted pursuant to subdivision (e) and the following conditions: . . . . (6) The court shall permit a party or attorney to file an application for waiver of court fees and costs, in lieu of requiring the payment of the filing fee, as part of the process involving the electronic filing of a document. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Government Code § 68634 states, in part: “(b) All applications for an initial fee waiver shall be accepted for filing. If an applicant submits an application without providing all required information to compete the form, the clerk shall request that the applicant supply the omitted information, but shall not refuse to file the application, or refuse to file any pleadings accompanying the application, on the ground that the fee has not been paid. . . . (c) If a person has filed an application for an initial fee waiver, the person shall be permitted to file his or her pleading or other papers immediately, without paying any fees.”

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.252 states in part: “(a) In general. A court may provide for electronic filing of documents in actions and proceedings as provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and the rules in this chapter. . . . (f) The court must permit electronic filing of an application for waiver of court fees and costs in any proceeding in which the court accepts electronic filings.

If a party qualifies for SSP or Medi-Cal, the party “shall be granted” permission to proceed without paying court fees. (Gov. Code, § 68632(a)(1) and (7).)

Useful Rulings on Request to Waive Court Fees

Recent Rulings on Request to Waive Court Fees

JOANNE SOSSMAN VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORP, A CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request to waive court fees which was denied on July 27, 2020. (Minute Order 7/27/20.) Because the filing fees remained unpaid as of August 12, 2020, the instant action was voided pursuant to Government Code section 68634(g). On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing case for failure to post first appearance fees after denial of the fee waiver. Plaintiff requests to reinstate case nunc pro tunc.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

If, however, Employee demonstrates to the Arbitrator that he or she would be entitled to a waiver of court fees due to indigence if the claim were commenced in court, then Employer will pay all of the fees and expenses of the Arbitrator. For any Employer claim. Employer shall pay all fees and expenses of the Arbitrator.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAMAAS EL VS CUSTODY ASSISTANT SOTO

Here, Plaintiff filed a Request to Waive Court Fees, which was approved by the Court on October 23, 2018 by Judge Jon R. Takasugi. (10/23/18 Notice: Waiver of Court Fees.) However, the request was granted by operation of law as no action was taken by the court within five days after the request was filed, not because the court expressly determined that Plaintiff was indigent. (Id.)

  • Hearing

THE LAW FIRM OF FOX AND FOX VS ARTHUR DUBOSE III

On March 6, 2020, Defendant, as a self-represented litigant, filed his answer to the Complaint and filed a Request to Waive Court Fees. Defendant’s request was denied on March 9, 2020. The notice of denial was served on March 10, 2020 by mail, and it advised Defendant that he had 10 days, plus 5 days because of mail service to pay the fees or submit a revised fee waiver application. On March 19, 2020 State and County stay-at-home orders were issued because of COVID 19.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TINE F SLOAN ET AL VS MICHELLE ANN BELTRAN SELL

Sell sought a waiver of court fees on July 10, 2020, and on July 20, 2020, filed the current motion. While her attempts to evade service were less than commendable, Sell’s conduct after the reopening of the courts was diligent, if uninformed. It would not have been easy for a self-represented litigant to have determined precisely when the court reopened for business, or precisely when a response to a pleading filed during the shutdown would have been legally due to be filed.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

OS PACIFIC, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS T-C TRIO APARTMENTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Indeed, OS Pacific’s showing falls far short of the types of financial information requested in the Judicial Council FW-001 form for the Request to Waive Court Fees. (Request for Judicial Notice Ex. 1; Cardinal Care, 47 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [quoting Alshafie v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BERNATZ VS. HAN

Defendant filed an answer in pro per on 9/17/19 along with a request to waive court fees. There was a hearing on the waiver of fees set for 11/12/19. The hearing was continued to 1/7/20 to allow Defendant to bring the correct documents required by the court (Judge Honer). (ROA 40, 41.) On 11/25/19, Plaintiffs then filed these Motions to Compel on that are set for this week. Defendant then filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Stay. (ROA 55.) The case was stayed o 12/16/19 and then the stay was lifted on 2/14/20.

  • Hearing

LASHAY TUCKER VS JOEL GUZMAN, ET AL.

On January 21, 2020, after Plaintiff’s request to waive court fees was denied, the court clerk issued a Notice of Voiding of Filing for failure to pay the filing fee. (1/21/20 Notice of Voiding of Filing.) On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reinstatement of Complaint (the “Motion”). As Defendants have not yet been served with the summons and complaint, service of this Motion is not required.

  • Hearing

LAMAAS EL VS CUSTODY ASSISTANT SOTO

Here, Plaintiff filed a Request to Waive Court Fees, which was approved by the Court on October 23, 2018 by Judge Jon R. Takasugi. (10/23/18 Notice: Waiver of Court Fees.) However, the request was granted by operation of law as no action was taken by the court within five days after the request was filed, not because the court expressly determined that Plaintiff was indigent. (Id.)

  • Hearing

SCHNEIDER V. ELITE DESIGNS

Application to Waive Court Fees. TENTATIVE RULING # 6: APPEARANCES REQUIRED AT 8:30 A.M. ON FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2020 IN DEPARTMENT NINE. NOTE: NO PERSONAL APPEARANCES WILL BE ALLOWED DUE TO THE ONGOING PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM ARE REQUIRED AND MEETING INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED. PARTIES TO CONTACT THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AT 530-621-5867 TO PROVIDE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SEND ZOOM INVITES TO ATTENDEES.

  • Hearing

ANGEL TORRES VS SHANNON LINARES

On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed in propria persona a motion to quash service of summons and a request to waive court fees. On November 25, 2019, the court clerk denied Defendant’s fee waiver request based on the finding that her stated household income was “not credible.” On November 26, 2019, the court clerk mail-served the court order denying the fee waiver request on Defendant. On December 17, 2019, the court clerk mail-served Defendant with a notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SARO NASHALIAN VS HAN KYUL KIM

With the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Request to Waive Court Fees. Plaintiff’s Request to Waive Court Fees was rejected on September 24, 2019 and was ordered to pay the required fees. (9/24/19 Order on Court Fee Waiver.) On October 16, 2019, following Plaintiff’s failure to pay court fees as directed, the court clerk voided the Complaint. (10/16/19 Clerk’s Notice of Voiding of Filing.) On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Order of Voiding of Filing (the “Motion”).

  • Hearing

GREENTEK CONSTRUCTION INC VS NOHEMI PORTILLO

Portillo requests that the monetary sanctions be reduced to the $73.60 filing fee because she currently is unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and she has obtained a waiver of court fees in this case. (Giraldo Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) However, Portillo has not proffered any testimony as to her unemployment; her counsel has no personal knowledge of that matter. The Court does take judicial notice of the fee waiver.

  • Hearing

OMNI SOUTH HILL LP VS IKE IKEME

On December 23, 2019, such answer was voided by the Clerk’s Office of this Court because: (1) Moving Defendant’s request to waive court fees was denied on November 27, 2019; and (2) Moving Defendant failed to make payment. As such, Moving Defendant’s answer was voided pursuant to California Government Code, Section 68634(g). A certificate of mailing with respect to the Clerk’s Notice of Voiding of Filing was executed on December 23, 2019. On January 6, 2020, default was entered against Moving Defendant.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC V. CARDIEL

The confusion appears to stem from the fact that when Defendant filled out her application for waiver of court fees, which she filed before her answer, and the order granting that application, filed after her answer, she gave 1772 Piner Rd #1 as her address but this appears to be the address of her place of work. Plaintiff now moves the Court to set aside the original order on the RFAs, due to inadequate notice to Defendant, and to hear Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Patrick M

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

MATTER OF CARRARI FAMILY TRUST

On March 4, 2019, Angelina Dettamanti (Dettamanti) submitted a Request to Waive Court Fees in related case No. 18CV06350, entitled Durant Harvesting, Inc. v. Angelina Dettamanti.

  • Hearing

LINDA MABRY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

On June 7, 2019, the clerk notified Plaintiff of the rejection of the complaint, because Plaintiff’s counsel had identified the Request to Waive Court Fees as a Request to Waive Additional Court Fees in the drop-down menu in the electronic filing system. (See Declaration of Daniel D. Geoulla) Plaintiff re-filed the case on June 11, 2019 without issue.

  • Hearing

ROBERT LOPEZ VS RALPHS SUPERMARKET

“Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Government Code sections 68926 or 68927 must be accompanied at the time of filing by the required fee or an application for a waiver of court fees under rule 8.26.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(c).) Accordingly, the Court cannot consider the instant Motions until one additional filing fee is paid.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ACAR LEASING LTD VS WILLIE ALBERT REAUX

“Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Government Code sections 68926 or 68927 must be accompanied at the time of filing by the required fee or an application for a waiver of court fees under rule 8.26.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(c).) Accordingly, the Court cannot consider the instant Motion until three additional filing fees are paid.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CRISTINA L. BUNCH VS ANGELIQUE FLORES, ET AL.

“Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Government Code sections 68926 or 68927 must be accompanied at the time of filing by the required fee or an application for a waiver of court fees under rule 8.26.” (CRC 8.25(c).) Because Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee for the improperly combined Motion instead of two filing fees, the Court cannot consider the Motion at this time. II.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC V. CARDIEL

The confusion appears to stem from the fact that when Defendant filled out her application for waiver of court fees, which she filed before her answer, and the order granting that application, filed after her answer, she gave 1772 Piner Rd #1 as her address but this appears to be the address of her place of work.” On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended motion showing the new hearing date and with a new proof of service.

  • Hearing

GALVAN VS. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC.

Plaintiff also filed a Request to Waive Court Fees and an Order on Court Fee Waiver. (Declaration of Scott Feig (“Feig Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the firm’s credit card in the event the court denied the Request to Waive Court Fees. (Feig Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) The order on the court fee waiver was issued on 11/28/18, and notice from the clerk of the court to pay the mandatory filing fee was served on 12/6/18. (Defendant’s RJN, Exs. C and D.) On 1/7/19, defendant filed an Answer.

  • Hearing

BRITTNEY L WALKER VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Course of Proceedings On March 15, 2019, the court denied Walker’s request to waive court fees. On June 18, 2019, the court held a trial setting conference and Walker did not appear. The court scheduled an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear for July 9, 2019. On July 9, 2019, the court held a hearing on the OSC. Again, Walker failed to appear. The court ordered the dismissal of the case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMALL ROBINSON ET AL. VS GOLF CREEKSIDE LLC ET AL.

On July 16, 2019 the corporate Defendants filed requests to waive court fees and answer in pro per. Now these defendants are represented by counsel. Plaintiffs’ request to strike the answers and enter defaults is denied. The court will request that the corporate defendants file amended answers through counsel within ten days. The case management conference scheduled for October 21, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 9/20/2019

  • Hearing

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC V. CARDIEL

The confusion appears to stem from the fact that when Defendant filled out her application for waiver of court fees, which she filed before her answer, and the order granting that application, filed after her answer, she gave 1772 Piner Rd #1 as her address but this appears to be the address of her place of work. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the Court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the Court.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.