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

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

    Jul 08, 2020

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

    Jul 08, 2020

  • 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

    Jun 09, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 20, 2020

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

    Dec 11, 2019

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

    Nov 20, 2019

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2019

  • 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

    Nov 06, 2019

  • 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

    Nov 05, 2019

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

    Oct 28, 2019

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

    Sep 26, 2019

  • 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

    Sep 20, 2019

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

    Sep 19, 2019

VALENCIA NORTHBRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS OKHAWERE AHANMISI

“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)(1), emphasis added.) “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.) Per Gov.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ VS LOM PROPERTY CORPORATION

Although Plaintiff’s request to waive court fees was granted, combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion, and using a reservation for one motion as the basis for others, manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. In the future, Plaintiff is ordered to reserve separate hearing dates for each individual motion. The Court will proceed to consider only one motion—the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (set one).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KENNETH S BRADLEY, M.D., VS KASHMIR STEFANI

Dickens, III (“Dickens”), declared that he filed a request to waive court fees with the court on October 16, 2015, based on Stefani’s qualification for Medi-Cal. Dickins declared he understood at the time that Stefani’s receipt of Medi-Cal guaranteed her a fee waiver of all court fees, including jury fees. (Declaration of Dickins ¶3.) Dickens declared he mistakenly did not file the request for additional fee waiver at the time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS MOVING COMPANY LOS ANGELES, LLC

“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 three filing fees, the Court cannot consider the Motion at this time. II.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAGAL, JAYMARIE VS TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

“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).) Accordingly, the Court cannot consider the instant Motions until two additional filing fees are paid. II. Conclusion & Order Defendants are ordered to pay two additional filing fees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARILUZ GONZALEZ VS JACQUELINE SUSANA ESCOBAR, 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).) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not paid all the required filing fees mandated by CRC 8.25(c). III. Conclusion & Order In light of the foregoing, the Motion is CONTINUED to September 17, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALVARADO, FELIX VS RAMIREZ, ALICIA

“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).) Accordingly, Defendant has not paid all the required filing fees mandated by CRC 8.25(c). III. Conclusion & Order In light of the foregoing, the Motion is CONTINUED to September 17, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARILUZ GONZALEZ VS JACQUELINE SUSANA ESCOBAR, 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).) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not paid all the required filing fees mandated by CRC 8.25(c). III. Conclusion & Order In light of the foregoing, the Motion is CONTINUED to September 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 94.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOEL BANDER, ET AL. VS RONALD BILLS, 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).) Here, Plaintiff Felicia improperly combines a motion to compel responses to request for production with a motion to compel further responses to request for production.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AVIRAM KAYVAN VS KATHRYN IRELAND

“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).) Here, Defendant improperly combines a motion to compel requests for production of documents and a motion to compel form interrogatories as one motion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TONEY, LETICHA VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS INC

“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).) Here, Defendant improperly combined three motions (a motion to quash service of process, a motion to vacate default judgment, and a motion to dismiss), each of which is based a different statutory ground (CCP §§ 418.10, 473.5, and 583.210).

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAN NAJERA ET AL VS LESLIE KAY CAVANAGH ET AL

Motion: On April 8, Collaso successfully filed a request to waive court fees, which the court granted, and a motion for an order setting aside the default. His proof of service indicates that counsel for plaintiffs was served with the motion and supporting documents by mail on April 14. There is no opposition on file with the court.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.