2:26-cv-06833•Nelson et al v. Mortgage Research Centers LLC et al
Full text
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 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Paul Michael Nelson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mortgage Research Centers LLC, et al., Defendants. No. CV-26-06833-PHX-JAT ORDER On October 2, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, in part, and required Plaintiffs to pay a partial filing fee of $50.00. (Doc. 9). To date, Plaintiffs have not paid the partial filing fee. As the Court stated in the October 2, 2026 Order, “Until the Plaintiffs pay the filing fee, this case has not commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1914; Wairimu v. Dir., Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 19-CV-174-BTM-MDD, 2019 WL 460561, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019).” On October 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Court will not screen the amended complaint until Plaintiffs pay the partial filing fee. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, naming 27 new Defendants, renaming 3 original Defendants, and dismissing 1 original Defendant, the Court will deny the motion for temporary restraining order, filed on October 1, 2026, without prejudice. The Court denies the motion for temporary restraining order because it is no longer based on the operative complaint. If, after paying the filing fee, Plaintiffs choose to file a new Case 2:26-cv-06833-JAT Document 13 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2
- 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 motion for temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs are cautioned that the motion must explain how injunctive relief is justified against each of the 30 Defendants in the amended complaint, or specify which Defendants are not the subject of the motion. See Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1288–90 (9th Cir. 2026) (discussing impermissible “shotgun” pleadings which inappropriately group all Defendants together in the allegations). The Court will also deny the motion for appointment of counsel and the motion for service by the Marshals, without prejudice, because they are unsigned. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 7), the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11), and the motion for service by the U.S. Marshals (Doc. 12), are all denied without prejudice. Dated this 14th day of October, 2026. Case 2:26-cv-06833-JAT Document 13 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.