Wilson v. Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC

Filing 8

ORDER granting Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to a district judge, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to grant #6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by A Marie Wilson. Objections due by 10/24/2019. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/7/2019. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2019: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 Case No. 19-cv-05698-KAW A MARIE WILSON, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. TOM-LIU FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 6 13 14 On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff A Marie Wilson filed a “Complaint Request for 15 Injunction” against Defendant Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff 16 alleged violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act, asserting that Defendant was trying to evict 17 Plaintiff due to racial discrimination. (See Compl. at 3; Wilson Affidavit ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 3.) 18 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP App., Dkt. No. 2.) 19 On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Dismissal of Injunction,” stating that 20 she “would like to file a motion to dissolve Injunction. Case No. 19-cv-05698 KAW.” (Dkt. No. 21 6.) The dismissal appeared to based on Plaintiff having prevailed in state court on the eviction 22 matter. (Id., Exh. A.) On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declination to magistrate judge 23 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 7.) 24 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and 25 REASSIGNS the case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be dismissed. 26 Based on Plaintiff’s September 19, 2019 request for dismissal, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to 27 dismiss the instant case, which she had filed as a “Complaint Request for Injunction.” The 28 September 19, 2019 request dismissal also refers directly to the instant case, in requesting that the 1 injunction be “dissolve[d].” (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) No injunction was issued, however, and Plaintiff 2 has now prevailed in the unlawful detainer action. 3 Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 4 within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 5 Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 7 Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2019 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?