There are a number of exceptions to this rule: 1) there is no charge for judicial opinions; 2) parties receive a free copy of filings in their own cases; 3) if a user incurs fees of less than $15 per quarter, then the fees are waived; 4) free access to PACER documents is available on public terminals in clerks’ offices; and 5) courts can grant fee waivers, allowing PACER to be used without charge. 28 U.S.C. § 1914, Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, ¶¶ 8, 9. But, nonetheless, $.10 per page is the rule.

In addressing whether federal courts had jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the TCPA, the Supreme Court observed that the vast majority of TCPA cases are class actions: The current federal district court civil filing fee is $350. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). How likely is it that a party would bring a $500 claim in, or remove a $500 claim to, federal court?

The cost of filing a case in District Court is $350. See 28 U.S.C.A. §1914. The Court’s time in adjudicating the claim is free.

It costs thousands of dollars in administrative fees to the AAA to pursue claims in arbitration, as opposed to the statutorily mandated $250 filing fee in federal court, and arbitrators charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their time while the court’s services are free. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The majority of Coverall’s workers simply will not have the money to pay arbitration expenses, as Coverall was certainly well aware when it created it arbitration policy.

Servs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1481 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 934 (N.D. Cal. 2002) aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds by Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, (9th Cir. 2003) (citing average daily rate of $1899 for arbitrators in California).22 A published research study found that the costs of pursuing an arbitral claim with JAMS were from 339% to 3,597% higher than a court action, and that costs of American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) arbitration were from 154% to 3,009% higher.23 For a case such as this, which involves RICO and California law claims against three groups of defendants, several weeks of trial time likely will be required. Even if Plaintiffs were assessed only one-half of the total fee, the Plaintiffs’ share would still be far more than the $350 filing fee of this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. See, e.g., Comb v. PayPal, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Ca. 2002) (estimated $5000 arbitral fee held excessive); Ting, 319 F.3d at 1151 (approving a Tenth Circuit decision “holding unenforceable a fee-splitting provision that would cost an employee between $1875 and $5000 to resolve a particular claim”); Acorn, 211 F.Supp.2d at 1174 (ten times the cost of court action).24 The fees that Plaintiffs would be 22 Although these authorities establish that arbitration would be substantially more costly to Plaintiffs than litigation in this Court would cost, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery if there is any doubt.

00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Motion to Require Compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) was served by mail upon the following: Frederick Banks Plaintiff, pro se DOC # 120759 Allegheny County Jail 950 Second Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Frederick Banks Plaintiff, pro se P.O. Box 295 Pittsburgh, PA 152302 Date: February 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer R. Andrade Jennifer R. Andrade Assistant U.S. Attorney 2 The address plaintiff provided in connection with his State Court filings conflicts with that which is currently of record in Criminal Action No. 04-176.

Pointedly, when codifying the PLRA in Title 28, Congress wrote “bring”—but not “institute”—to authorize this privilege. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (“parties instituting any civil action”) with § 1915 (“prisoner brings a civil action”); cf. Firstar Bank, N.A. v. Faul, 253 F.3d 982, 992 (7th Cir. 2001) (interpreting Title 28 with the “canon that different words in the same statute should be given different meanings”). And in Newlin, the Court noted that “[a] prisoner who accumulates three strikes loses for the duration of imprisonment the right to proceed in forma pauperis . . . ” Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436 (emphasis supplied).

As the court explained in Exhibit Icons, LLC, 2009 WL 3877667, at *2, “pro hac vice fee is an expense of counsel, not the client, and is thus not properly recoverable.” See also Eagle Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 982 F. Supp. 1456, 1459-60 (M.D. Ala. 1997), aff’d 162 F.3d 98 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro hac vice costs denied as not a “fee of the clerk” under 28 U.S.C. § 1914); Romero v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 585, 594 (E.D. Mo. 1994). Moreover, Plaintiffs “ought not to bear a cost resulting from Defendants choosing an out of state attorney to defend themselves when Case 1:07-cv-22693-PCH Document 375 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2009 Page 5 of 19 6 competent in-state attorneys [are] available.”

The Court should declare the DRA invalid on the ground that its purported enactment violated article I, section 7, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The Court should also order the Clerk to accept $250 as the fee for filing new civil cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (2004). Dated: June 13, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Allison M. Zieve (D.C. Bar No. 424786) Adina H. Rosenbaum (D.C. Bar No. 490928) Brian Wolfman (D.C. Bar No. 427491) Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 Counsel for Plaintiff Public Citizen Case 1:06-cv-00523-JDB Document 8 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 25 of 25

The Court should declare the DRA invalid on the ground that its purported enactment violated article I, section 7, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The Court should also order the Clerk to accept $250 as the fee for filing new civil cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (2004). Dated: June 13, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Allison M. Zieve (D.C. Bar No. 424786) Adina H. Rosenbaum (D.C. Bar No. 490928) Brian Wolfman (D.C. Bar No. 427491) Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 Counsel for Plaintiff Public Citizen Case 1:06-cv-00523-JDB Document 9 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 25 of 25