Hong v. Sun
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-05500
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Hong v. Sun: Judge Rochon denied Hong’s requests to proceed without fees and for volunteer counsel because Plaintiff was not indigent and claims were undeveloped.
Kyong Mi Hong’s applications to proceed without paying court fees and to obtain a court request for volunteer counsel were denied. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were dismissed or otherwise resolved.
What happened
In Hong v. Sun, Kyong Mi Hong asked to proceed without paying court fees and asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer. Hong’s lawsuit concerns allegations that cryptocurrency assets deposited into a Tronlink application became frozen and were not reissued.
Judge Rochon found that Hong reported monthly income of $3,850 and savings of $10,312.82, so the court did not find Hong unable to afford the filing fee. The court also said the case was at an early stage, Defendants had not yet been served, and the available allegations did not show that the case was likely to be substantial or would require a lawyer.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied both applications: the request to proceed without paying fees and the request for the court to seek volunteer counsel. The opinion does not decide the underlying cryptocurrency claims.
The detailed version
- Hong v. Sun · No. 1:23-cv-05500
- Rochon
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff Kyong Mi Hong filed an application to proceed without paying court fees and a separate application asking the Court to request volunteer legal counsel. The lawsuit names Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Ltd., and Bittorrent Foundation Ltd. as Defendants.
Hong alleges that Hong owns “TRX” cryptocurrency securities deposited into the “Tronlink pro application” operated by Bittorrent Foundation Ltd. According to the allegations described in the opinion, the assets later became frozen in the application, and Tron Foundation did not respond to requests to reissue them. The Defendants had not yet been served when the Court considered the applications.
Legal standards
The Court explained that permission to proceed without paying court fees is discretionary. It also explained that, in a civil case, a court is not required to provide a lawyer to a person who cannot afford one. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may request—but cannot require or pay for—a lawyer to volunteer.
Before requesting volunteer counsel, the Court must first determine that the person is unable to afford counsel and that the claims appear likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the Court considers factors including the person’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to obtain counsel, and whether a lawyer would likely lead to a fairer result.
Court’s analysis
The Court found that Hong’s reported monthly income of $3,850 and savings of $10,312.82 did not provide a basis to find Hong unable to afford the court fees. That finding alone was sufficient reason to reject the request for volunteer counsel.
The Court also found that, at this early stage, it could not determine that Hong’s claims were likely to be substantial. Because the Defendants had not yet been served and based on the allegations then available, the Court could not determine that the claims would require substantial investigation, were complex, or presented another special reason why volunteer counsel would produce a quicker or fairer result.
Disposition
The Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed without paying court fees and denied Plaintiff’s application for the Court to request volunteer counsel. The opinion does not decide the merits of Hong’s underlying claims about the cryptocurrency assets.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.