Opinion
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On June 5, 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court; granted defendant A. Teichert & Son, Inc.'s motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims against defendant Teichert with prejudice; and remanded the remainder of the action (plaintiffs' state law claims against defendant Ronald Wolfson) to state court. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) Thereafter, on June 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos. 28, 30.)
The action was initially removed to this court by defendants, who paid the appropriate fee upon removal. As such, plaintiffs were not previously granted in forma pauperis status during the pendency of the action in district court.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that "a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court." Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff satisfies the "good faith" requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is "not frivolous." Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445).
For the reasons stated in the March 15, 2013 findings and recommendations (see ECF No. 22), adopted by the district judge on June 5, 2013 (ECF No. 26), the court finds that the instant appeal is frivolous. The court thus certifies that plaintiffs' appeal is not taken in good faith.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiffs and on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.