Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li

W.D. Texas

Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li

DecidedDecember 1, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01779

StatusUnknown

This text of Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li (Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

JULIUS ABELLA, § Plaintiff § § v. § § No. 1:25-CV-01779 -ADA-SH § LUMENOTE LTD. and JENNY § LEE ALSO KNOWN AS SHU § TING LI, § Defendants §

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 10), filed November 20, 2025.1 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Under § 1915(a)(1), a district court may permit a plaintiff to file an action in federal court “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff shows by affidavit that he cannot pay such fees. The district court’s decision whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis “must be based solely upon economic criteria.” Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F.4th 566, 569 (5th Cir. 2024). The movant need not be “absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Instead, the question is whether the movant can afford the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of “the necessities of life.” Id. After reviewing Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that she cannot pay the filing fee without experiencing undue financial hardship and GRANTS her application for in forma

1 The District Court referred to this Magistrate Judge all non-dispositive pretrial matters for disposition and all case-dispositive motions for findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and Judge Alan D Albright’s Standing Order on referrals to United States Magistrate Judges. Dkt. 3. pauperis status. Plaintiff is advised that in forma pauperis status is granted subject to a later determination that this action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is also advised that although she has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court may impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621

(5th Cir. 1994). II. Review Under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A court may summarily dismiss or partly dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes the action is (1) frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In deciding whether a complaint states a claim, the Court’s task is “to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff’s

likelihood of success.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This Magistrate Judge does not recommend that the District Court dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) at this time. III. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 10) and ORDERS Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed without prepayment of fees or costs or giving security therefor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); the Clerk to issue summons; and the United States Marshals Service to attempt service in this case without pre- payment of a service fee. SIGNED on December 1, 2025. SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

JULIUS ABELLA, § Plaintiff § § v. § § No. 1:25-CV-01779 -ADA-SH § LUMENOTE LTD. and JENNY § LEE ALSO KNOWN AS SHU § TING LI, § Defendants §

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 10), filed November 20, 2025.1 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Under § 1915(a)(1), a district court may permit a plaintiff to file an action in federal court “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff shows by affidavit that he cannot pay such fees. The district court’s decision whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis “must be based solely upon economic criteria.” Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F.4th 566, 569 (5th Cir. 2024). The movant need not be “absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Instead, the question is whether the movant can afford the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of “the necessities of life.” Id. After reviewing Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that she cannot pay the filing fee without experiencing undue financial hardship and GRANTS her application for in forma

1 The District Court referred to this Magistrate Judge all non-dispositive pretrial matters for disposition and all case-dispositive motions for findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and Judge Alan D Albright’s Standing Order on referrals to United States Magistrate Judges. Dkt. 3. pauperis status. Plaintiff is advised that in forma pauperis status is granted subject to a later determination that this action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is also advised that although she has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court may impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621

(5th Cir. 1994). II. Review Under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A court may summarily dismiss or partly dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes the action is (1) frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In deciding whether a complaint states a claim, the Court’s task is “to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff’s

likelihood of success.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This Magistrate Judge does not recommend that the District Court dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) at this time. III. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 10) and ORDERS Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed without prepayment of fees or costs or giving security therefor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); the Clerk to issue summons; and the United States Marshals Service to attempt service in this case without pre- payment of a service fee. SIGNED on December 1, 2025. SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Julius Abella v. Lumenote Ltd. and Jenny Lee also known as Shu Ting Li, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julius-abella-v-lumenote-ltd-and-jenny-lee-also-known-as-shu-ting-li-txwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack