Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center
- Joseph Spero
- 4:25-cv-06598
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Judge Tigar allowed a late objection but denied reversing reassignment and recusal.
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng’s case assignment and recusal motions were affected; the case remains assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
What happened
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center concerns Feng’s late objection to reassignment of her case and her request that the judge step aside. The court allowed her to file the late objection after considering her explanation about delayed notices and other logistical problems.
The court kept the case assigned to itself because it found that the case and Feng’s earlier related proceeding concerned substantially the same parties, events, and alleged injuries. Feng also argued that the judge was biased based on rulings and case-management decisions in the earlier proceeding.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that Feng’s motion to file a late objection was granted, while her motions to reverse the related-case reassignment and for recusal were denied. The court found no plausible basis for recusal.
The detailed version
- Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center · No. 4:25-cv-06598
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng, representing herself, filed this case on August 5, 2025. The case was referred to Judge Tigar to determine whether it was related to Feng’s earlier case, identified in the opinion as Feng v. Tripp, No. 24-cv-07539-JST. Judge Tigar found that the cases were related and reassigned this case to himself on August 29, 2025.
Feng later filed motions seeking an extension of time to oppose the reassignment, reassignment back to Judge Orrick, and recusal of Judge Tigar. She said that she did not receive notices about the referral and reassignment until after the deadline and attributed delays to alleged surveillance, interference with communications, and technological or logistical problems.
Late Objection to Reassignment
The deadline to oppose reassignment was August 26, 2025. Feng filed her opposition on September 17, 2025, twenty-two days late. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), a court may extend an expired deadline when the party shows good cause and excusable neglect.
The court construed Feng’s explanation as asserting that technological or logistical problems prevented her from receiving the notices on time. It granted her motion to file a late opposition.
Whether the Cases Were Related
The court declined to change its earlier conclusion that the cases were related. Under the court’s local rule, cases are related when they concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event.
The court noted that the current complaint added medical-provider defendants but repeated claims against unnamed Federal Bureau of Investigation agents. It also described many of the same alleged events and injuries, including alleged attacks involving radiation, poison, and drugs, alleged falsification of medical records and test results, and an involuntary detention under a 5150 order. The court held that the cases were related and that reassignment to Judge Tigar was proper.
Recusal
Recusal means that a judge steps aside from a case. Feng argued that Judge Tigar was biased because of decisions and case-management actions in the earlier proceeding, including rulings involving standing, scheduling, a preliminary-injunction motion, reassignment, and the refusal to vacate a decision. She also cited perceived bias, abuse of discretion, due-process violations, and a conflict of interest without providing further explanation.
The court ruled that Feng identified only judicial decisions and routine case-management actions, not an outside source of bias or a pattern of irregularities. It also found that her specific allegations lacked support. The court concluded that she identified no plausible basis to find that Judge Tigar was biased and denied her motion for recusal.
Disposition
The motion for an extension of time to oppose reassignment was granted. The motions to reverse the relation of the cases and for recusal were denied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.