1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUSTICE SMITH, Case No. 24-cv-01363-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF

APPEAL AS STATEMENT OF INTENT

9 v. TO STAND ON THE ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT; DISMISSING CASE;

10 SEQUOIA BENEFITS AND INSURANCE CERTIFYING APPEAL IS NOT SERVICES LLC, et al., TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH UNDER 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915 Defendants. 12

13 In an order filed April 2, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis based on an inability to pay the filing fee, and dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action under 15 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The Court 16 dismissed those claims without leave to amend, but allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint 17 by April 19 asserting other claims if she wished. 18 Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, which the Court 19 denied in an order filed April 5, 2024. In that order, the Court explained why plaintiff could not 20 state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the FCRA, and the Court noted that if plaintiff is a class 21 member in In re: Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-08217- 22 RFL (N.D. Cal.), it appeared that there were other claims she could bring. The Court again notified 23 plaintiff that she could file an amended complaint by April 19. 24 On April 16, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion 25 for Reconsideration. The Court construes plaintiff’s notice of appeal as notification of her intent to 26 stand on her original complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063-65 (9th Cir. 27 2004), and accordingly the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice. However, the dismissal 1 claims currently being litigated in In re: Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Data Breach Litigation, 2 Case No. 3:22-cv-08217-REFL (N.D. Cal.). 3 Finally, because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to certify 4 || whether the appeal is taken in good faith, meaning the appeal is not frivolous. See Gardner v. Pogue, 5 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977). An appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or 6 fact. See Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). For the reasons stated in the earlier orders, 7 || the Court finds that plaintiff cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the FCRA against 8 || defendants arising out of the hack of Sequoia’s cloud system, and therefore that the appeal lacks any 9 arguable basis in law or fact. As such, the Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12

13 || Dated: April 18, 2024

SUSAN ILLSTON

14 United States District Judge 15 16

it

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28