Lee v. Proland Management
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lee v. Proland Management, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice after finding Young Yil Jo filed it in Lee’s name.
Kum Nam Lee’s purported action was dismissed, but the dismissal was without prejudice to any future action Lee may wish to bring. Young Yil Jo remained barred from filing new actions in this court without permission and from filing documents in another person’s name. Proland Management was named as the sole defendant, but the court did not decide the merits of the allegations against it.
What happened
Kum Nam Lee submitted a handwritten complaint against Proland Management, claiming discrimination after a Section 8 apartment application was denied and seeking $10 million. The filing asserted a claim under a federal civil-rights law, but it did not include the required fees or a completed application to proceed without paying them in advance.
The court reviewed its records and found that Young Yil Jo had filed the action in Lee’s name. Earlier orders had barred Jo from filing new cases in the court without permission and from filing documents in another person’s name.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice to any case Lee may bring in the future. The court also said Jo remained subject to the earlier restrictions, warned that additional sanctions could follow, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Proland Management · No. 1:22-cv-00207
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
The court received a one-page handwritten complaint purportedly brought by Kum Nam Lee against Proland Management. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that Lee’s Section 8 apartment application had been denied without discrimination being addressed. It sought $10 million in damages and other relief.
The submission did not include the $402 required to start a civil action—identified by the court as a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or a completed and signed application to proceed without prepaying those fees.
Why the Court Dismissed the Action
The court reviewed the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system and concluded that the filing had been made by Young Yil Jo in Lee’s name. The court noted that Jo had filed hundreds of actions in that court, both in his own name and in the names of other purported plaintiffs.
The court also relied on earlier orders that barred Jo from filing any new civil action or proceeding in that court without first obtaining permission. Those orders also barred Jo from filing any document in the court in another person’s name.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Lee may wish to bring in the future. This means the dismissal did not bar Lee from bringing a future action, but the order did not decide whether Lee’s allegations against Proland Management were legally or factually valid.
The court advised that Jo remained subject to the earlier restrictions and warned that additional restrictions and sanctions could be imposed if he continued filing cases in other people’s names. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Lee and Jo and record service on the docket.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the action based on who it found filed the case and on Jo’s filing restrictions, without reaching the merits of Lee’s allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.