Wilson v. Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-05698
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wilson v. Tom-Liu Family Investments, Judge Tigar granted Wilson’s fee waiver and recommended dismissing her eviction-discrimination case.
A Marie Wilson received permission to proceed without paying court fees, but her case was reassigned and dismissal was recommended. Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC was the defendant in the recommended dismissal proceeding.
What happened
In Wilson v. Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC, A Marie Wilson sued after alleging that the defendant was trying to evict her because of racial discrimination, violating the Federal Fair Housing Act. She requested an injunction and permission to proceed without paying court fees.
Wilson later asked to dismiss or dissolve the requested injunction after apparently prevailing in the state eviction case. The court noted that it had never issued an injunction.
The court granted Wilson permission to proceed without paying fees, reassigned the case to a district judge, and recommended dismissing the case. Judge Jon Tigar’s order allowed objections within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC · No. 4:19-cv-05698
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 7, 2019
Background
A Marie Wilson filed a complaint requesting an injunction against Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC. She alleged that the defendant was attempting to evict her because of racial discrimination, in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Wilson also applied to proceed without paying court fees, a request commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis.
Wilson later filed a request seeking dismissal of the injunction, stating that she wanted to dissolve it. The order says this request appeared to be based on her having prevailed in the state-court eviction matter. The court also noted that no injunction had been issued.
Court’s Action
The court granted Wilson’s application to proceed without paying court fees. It reassigned the case to a district judge and issued a recommendation that the case be dismissed based on Wilson’s September 19, 2019 request. The order itself was a recommendation of dismissal, not an order stating that the case had already been dismissed.
Any party could object to the recommendation within 14 days after being served. The order warned that failing to object within that period could waive the right to appeal the district court’s later order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.