Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04226/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04226-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sofie Liu
Defendant
A Marie Wilson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A MARIE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOFIE LIU,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04226-PJH 

ORDER

The court is in receipt of plaintiff A Marie Wilson's complaint and motion for an 

injunction related to her alleged pending eviction. Based on the papers filed by plaintiff, 

the court cannot determine the urgency of plaintiff's present motion. Specifically, plaintiff 

has not stated when she believes her eviction will occur and the basis for that belief. And 

there is nothing in the present record from which the court can infer when the eviction will 

occur. In addition, based on the present filings, the court is unable to determine what 

relief plaintiff's motion seeks. Without such information, the court will not rule on plaintiff's 

motion because the party seeking an emergency injunction “must establish that [s]he is 

likely to succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Assn’s, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 

F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, the plaintiff must “demonstrate immediate 

threatened injury.” Koller v. Brown, 224 F. Supp. 3d 871, 879 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

The court is also not presently inclined to rule on plaintiff’s motion without the 

defendant being given the opportunity to respond. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders the following:

Case 4:19-cv-04226-PJH Document 9 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. Plaintiff shall serve the defendant with this order and plaintiff's complaint, 

motion, and supporting exhibits no later than Thursday, July 25, 2019, at 

9:00 a.m. 

2. No later than Friday, July 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., plaintiff shall file a 

supplemental brief and exhibits, if any, pertaining to the issues discussed 

above and any other issues relevant to plaintiff's motion for an injunction. 

That supplemental brief shall also be served on defendant the same day it 

is filed with this court. 

3. Defendant shall file a response to plaintiff's motion no later than Monday, 

July 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. 

4. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant's response no later than Tuesday, July 

30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.

5. A hearing will be held on plaintiff's motion on July 31, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, 

California.

6. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The court will 

conduct a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 review in conjunction with its eventual ruling on 

plaintiff’s motion for an injunction. 

Plaintiff may wish to seek free legal advice by calling the Legal Help Center at 

415-782-8982 or by signing up for an appointment at the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2795, San Francisco California 94102. The litigant can 

speak with an attorney who will provide basic legal help, but not legal representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04226-PJH Document 9 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 2