Lee v. Proland Management
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lee v. Proland Management, Judge Swain dismissed the action because Young Yil Jo filed it in Kum Nam Lee’s name, while preserving Lee’s ability to sue.
The action filed in Kum Nam Lee’s name was dismissed without prejudice. Young Yil Jo remains subject to restrictions barring him from filing a new action without court permission or filing documents in another person’s name. Kum Nam Lee may bring a civil action in the future.
What happened
Lee v. Proland Management was filed in the name of Kum Nam Lee, but the court determined that Young Yil Jo had actually filed it. The court had previously barred Jo from filing documents in another person’s name and from starting a new case without permission.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice to any future civil action that Kum Nam Lee might bring. This means the dismissal did not prevent Lee from bringing a separate action in the future.
Judge Swain also said Jo’s filing restrictions remained in effect and warned that additional restrictions or sanctions could follow. The court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Proland Management · No. 1:22-cv-03734
- Laura Swain
- May 12, 2022
Background
The court received a pro se action—an action filed without a lawyer—purportedly brought by Kum Nam Lee. The court found that Young Yil Jo had actually filed it in Lee’s name. The court referred to earlier proceedings in which Jo had been barred from filing documents in the name of another person and from filing any new civil action or proceeding in the court without first obtaining permission.
Ruling
Because the court found that Jo filed the action in Lee’s name, it dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Lee might bring in the future. The opinion therefore did not decide the underlying legal claims.
The court stated that Jo’s earlier filing injunctions remained in effect. Jo remained barred from filing a new civil action or proceeding in the court without first obtaining leave, and from filing any document in the court in another person’s name. The court said it would continue dismissing actions Jo filed in another person’s name and warned that additional restrictions and sanctions could be imposed if Jo continued doing so.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Jo and Lee.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.