Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 22, 2023

Hong v. Sun

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-05500
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Hong v. Sun: Judge Swain denied Hong’s fee-waiver request, required $402 payment within 30 days, and denied his renewed request to limit public access.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Kyong Mi Hong must pay $402 within 30 days to continue the action, unless the court’s stated dismissal condition is triggered. His renewed request to limit public access was denied, and he cannot proceed without prepaying fees or appeal without paying fees under this order. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Limited, or Bittorrent Foundation Ltd.

What happened

In Hong v. Sun, Kyong Mi Hong filed a civil action against Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Limited, and Bittorrent Foundation Ltd. Hong asked to proceed without paying the filing fees upfront.

Hong’s first application did not answer most questions. The court ordered him to submit an amended application. He then reported monthly income of $4,507.89, monthly expenses of $1,878.29, and substantial savings.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Hong’s request to proceed without prepaying fees, finding that he had enough assets to pay $402. She ordered him to pay within 30 days and denied his renewed request to limit public access to the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hong v. Sun · No. 1:23-cv-05500
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 22, 2023

Background

Kyong Mi Hong filed this action on June 27, 2023, using the court’s procedures for people representing themselves to submit documents by email. The court directed Hong either to pay the $402 required fees or to apply to proceed without prepaying them. This type of application is commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP.

Hong’s first IFP application did not answer most of the questions. The court ordered him to submit an amended application with complete answers and facts showing that he could not pay the fees. In the amended application, Hong stated that he was employed, earned $4,507.89 per month, had monthly expenses of $1,878.29, and had a significant amount of money in a savings account.

Other Request

Hong also asked the court to change the case to “private.” The court had previously treated similar requests as requests to proceed anonymously or under a pseudonym and to file the case under seal, and had denied them. The court denied Hong’s renewed request for the same reasons.

Ruling

The court denied Hong’s request to proceed without prepaying fees because it found that he had sufficient assets to pay them. The court ordered him to pay $402 within 30 days: a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee. The court stated that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply within that period.

The court also denied Hong’s renewed request to limit public access to the case. It certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal. The order addressed filing-fee and public-access requests, not the underlying claims against the defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.