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).

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