ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jaime Reyes, a non-prisoner, proceeding with counsel, has filed a complaint for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and various state laws. Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. No. 2.]

Plaintiff's counsel, Michael Taibi, has filed at least sixty-six cases in this court in 2018 on behalf of eight plaintiffs, including eight cases on behalf of Mr. Reyes.1 Most or all sixty-six cases utilize the same complaint containing the same verbatim generic allegations aside from the identification of the defendants and location in question and the details of the plaintiff's alleged visit to the establishment (which is typically contained entirely in paragraph 11 of the complaint presumably to avoid Taibi having to renumber the remaining paragraphs). Most or all of the sixty-six complaints attach a form report from William Carter, who purports to be president of "Daoliam International" and a "Disabled Accessibility Compliance Expert" or "D.A.C.E.", a designation or certification with which the Court is unfamiliar and about which the Court has been unable to locate any information.

In all sixty-six cases, including Mr. Reyes' eight cases, the plaintiff applies to proceed IFP, and each IFP application lists monthly income consisting of disability benefits between $826 and $930, and, in more recent filings for some of the plaintiffs, income of $100 to $250 from "ADA settlements." The monthly expenses on the applications filed by Mr. Taibi's cadre of plaintiffs vary from line item to line item from filing to filing, but almost always exceed the stated monthly income. Almost all of these IFP applications have been granted, but when a Court has challenged the statements in an IFP application from one of Mr. Taibi's clients, or denied the application entirely, the filing fee is paid within days. See, e.g., Banks v. Rigoberto's Taco Shop, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-584-LAB-BLM; Navarro v. The Tyrone Times, Inc., 18-CV-1966-CAB-KSC. Finally, almost all of Mr. Taibi's cases settle and/or are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before or shortly after an answer is filed. In twenty-nine of the sixty-six cases, notices of settlement and/or notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice were filed. The dockets for most of the remaining cases do not reflect any service on the defendants, and just two cases have proceeded through an early neutral evaluation conference ("ENE") and had a scheduling order entered.2

As for Mr. Reyes' eight IFP applications, filed between March and November of this year, he lists total monthly expenses of $1,015 (two times),3 $810 (two times), $860 (one time), and $980 (three times). All eight applications list $850 in disability income. In the first five cases, the IFP application does not list any ADA settlement income. In the last three, the IFP application lists $100 in monthly ADA settlement income. None of the applications list any cash or other assets. Yet, in a case filed just two days before the instant case, after Judge Larry Burns ordered Mr. Reyes to either lodge under seal any settlement agreements to which he has been a party over the past year or pay the filing fee, Mr. Reyes somehow paid the filing fee the following day. See Reyes v. Chang, Case No. 18-CV-2684-LAB-LL. The status of Mr. Reyes's seven other federal4 cases in this district is consistent with that of the sixty-six cases Mr. Taibi has filed this year:

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the representations contained in the Reyes' IFP application in this case are not credible. That Plaintiff has only $100 in monthly income from settlements despite having filed eight cases in this court and scores more in state court over the past five years is simply implausible, particularly considering that all of the federal cases, and presumably all of the state cases, seek statutory damages of at least $4,000 plus attorney's fees. Accordingly, the application to proceed IFP is DENIED. Mr. Reyes is ORDERED to pay the filing fee by December 10, 2018, or this case will be dismissed without further order from the Court.

It is SO ORDERED.