Hong v. Sun
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-05500
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hong v. Son, Judge Rochon extended Hong’s deadline to file the summons and Complaint after he reported not receiving court papers.
The order affects Kyong Mi Hong by extending his deadline until April 27, 2025, and affects the case administration involving Justin Son, Tron Foundation Ltd., and Bittorrent Foundation Ltd. It does not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Hong v. Son, the court had ordered Kyong Mi Hong to explain why the summons and Complaint had not been served within the 90 days required by Rule 4(m), or to explain when and how service had occurred. Hong then reported that he had not received court filings at his new mailing address and was seeking free legal assistance.
The court said that good cause under Rule 4(m) depends on the plaintiff’s reasonable efforts to serve the defendants and whether the defendants were harmed by the delay. Although being without a lawyer does not automatically excuse late service, the court may extend the deadline.
Because Hong was proceeding without a lawyer and reported not receiving court filings, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted him until April 27, 2025, to file the summons and Complaint. The Clerk was directed to send the order and related information to Hong’s mailing and email addresses.
The detailed version
- Hong v. Sun · No. 1:23-cv-05500
- Rochon
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
On January 24, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Kyong Mi Hong to show good cause—an adequate explanation—for not serving the summons and Complaint within the 90 days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Court also gave Hong the option to state when and how Defendants had been served if Hong believed service had already occurred.
On February 23, 2025, Hong filed a letter stating that he had not received court filings at his new mailing address and was seeking pro bono services to help prosecute the litigation. The opinion describes Hong as proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer.
Legal standard
The Court explained that Rule 4(m) does not define good cause. Courts in the district consider whether the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve the defendants and whether the defendants were prejudiced, meaning harmed, by the delay. The Court also explained that pro se status does not excuse a failure to serve within the Rule 4(m) period or automatically establish good cause, but the Court may exercise discretion to extend the time for service.
Ruling
Because Hong was proceeding pro se and indicated that he had not been receiving court filings, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Hong an extension until April 27, 2025, to file the summons and Complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to send the order to the mailing address and email address listed on the docket, along with a previously mailed information package. The Court also provided information about the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project and Legal Clinic.
This order extends a filing deadline. It does not decide the underlying claims against Justin Son, Tron Foundation Ltd., or Bittorrent Foundation Ltd.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.