Lee v. Proland Management
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07728
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lee v. Proland Management, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Young Yil Jo—not Kum Nam Lee—filed it despite filing injunctions.
Kum Nam Lee’s purported action was dismissed without prejudice, while Young Yil Jo remains subject to filing injunctions and possible additional sanctions.
What happened
In Kum Nam Lee v. Proland Management, the court received an action said to be brought by Kum Nam Lee without a lawyer, but court records showed that Young Yil Jo filed it. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court had previously barred Jo from filing documents in another person’s name and from filing new civil actions or proceedings without first obtaining the court’s permission. Kum Nam Lee may still bring a civil action in the future. Jo remains subject to those filing restrictions, and the court warned that additional restrictions or sanctions could follow.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this action without prejudice to any civil action Kum Nam Lee may bring in the future. She also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Proland Management · No. 1:22-cv-07728
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
The court received this pro se action on September 7, 2022, purportedly brought by Kum Nam Lee. The court found that court records showed the action was actually filed by Young Yil Jo. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against Proland Management.
Prior filing restrictions
The court stated that, in prior proceedings, it had barred Jo from filing any document in the court in another person’s name. It had also barred Jo from filing any new civil action or proceeding in that court without first obtaining leave of the court. The court said those injunctions remained in effect.
Disposition
Because the court found that Jo filed the action, it dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Kum Nam Lee may wish to bring in the future. The court stated that it would continue to dismiss actions filed by Jo in another person’s name without prejudice to that person’s possible future action. It warned that continued filings could lead to additional restrictions and sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court did not reach the merits of any underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.