United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
McNulty United States District Judge.
before the Court are several motions of pro se
plaintiff Gloria Sun Jung Yun ("Ms. Yun") filed
today, February 26, 2019. I first consider Ms. Yun's
notice of joinder of Chief Judge Gary M. Price of the
Municipal Court for the Township of Edison, New Jersey as a
defendant. (DE 33). I second consider the related emergent
motion (DE 31) for injunctive relief. The majority of Ms.
Yun's motion asks this court to vacate an unspecified
judgment by Judge Price and to void certain warrants for Ms.
Yun's arrest. (DE 31). (Ms. Yun does not give details on
the alleged warrants.). (Id.). In the alternative,
Ms. Yun seeks an immediate hearing. [Id.). I third
consider Ms. Yun's motion to strike the pending motion
(DE 26) of defendants Edison Police Department, Prosecutor
Metha, and Nicholas P. Parenty to dismiss her complaint. (DE
I consider Ms. Yun's motion to join Judge Price as a
defendant (DE 33). The same standard that governs Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 15(a) regarding amendments to the complaint also
governs joinder. The same liberal standard applicable to a
motion for leave to amend a pleading governs an application
for permissive joinder. Bell v. Lockheed Martin
Corp., No. CIV 08-6292, 2010 WL 2666950, at *4 (D.N.J.
June 23, 2010) ("Regardless of whether a motion to amend
is considered under Rule 15 or Rule 20 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the standard for adding a party is the
same.") (internal citations omitted), affd, No.
CIV. 08-6292, 2010 WL 3724271 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2010).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), "a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). "[L]eave
[to amend] shall be freely given when justice so
requires." Id. Accordingly, the courts
"have shown a strong liberality ... in allowing
amendments under Rule 15(a)." Heyl &
Patterson Int'l, Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing, 663
F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir.1981) (quoting 3 J. Moore, Moore's
Federal Practice ¶ 15.08(2) (2d ed. 1989)). In this
case, Ms. Yun's complaint (DE 1) alleges a number of
grievances against a "magistrate judge Gary Price"
(see e.g., DE 1, ¶ 49).
case, I am inclined to grant Ms. Yun leave to amend because
it appears that she may have intended all along to bring at
least some of her claims against Judge Price. For example, in
Count Six, Ms. Yun alleges that she was denied a trial by a
jury of her peers (DE 1, ¶ 86), and in Count 12, Ms. Yun
alleges that the defendants subjected her to martial law
(id. ¶ 91).
I consider Ms. Yun's motion for a temporary restraining
order (DE 31). A party seeking a temporary preliminary
injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits, (2) the prospect of irreparable harm, (3) that the
harm would exceed harm to the opposing party, and (4) that
the public interest favors relief. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v.
Torrent Pharm. Ltd., Inc., No. CIV.A. 14-1078 JBS/K,
2015 WL 1782653, at *6-7 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2015).
Ms. Yun seeks that this Court vacate a judgement by Judge
Price and void the arrest warrants he has issued against her.
Ms. Yun argues that Judge Price issued a judgment against her
based upon her failure to appear in court despite the fact
that Ms. Yun never received a notice to appear. (DE 31). She
also complains that Judge Price issued warrants for Ms.
Yun's arrest based on her failure to "pay Federal
Reserve notes." (DE 31 p. 2). Ms. Yun argues, without
support evidence, that her failure to pay was based on the
Judge or the Judge's clerk acting unlawfully.
(Id.). Ms. Yun asserts that the Judge or the
Judge's clerk acted unlawfully because they violated her
rights as a sovereign citizen. (Id. pp. 2-3.) (The
"federal reserve notes" allegation may be related
to this.) Ms. Yun claims that she will suffer emotional and
mental stress if she is arrested, which will cause
irreparable injury to her health. (Id. p. 2).
I am not presented with a likelihood of success on the
merits. Ms. Yun has not provided any evidence that Judge
Price wrongfully filed his judgment other than her word that
she did not receive notice to appear. Moreover, as I
discussed in my previous opinion (DE 29), Ms. Yun's
sovereign citizen arguments-essentially, that she is not
required to submit to the jurisdiction of any government-are
frivolous. Second, Ms. Yun has not presented evidence that
she will suffer irreparable harm if the judgment and arrest
warrants against her are not immediately vacated. If the
problem is failure to appear, then she should appear and
persuade the court that her failure to appear was excusable.
Finally, the relief Ms. Yun seeks would disrupt New
Jersey's processes of criminal adjudication and appellate
review. The federal courts do not sit to review rulings in
ongoing state court cases. Ms. Yun is instructed that the New
Jersey state court system is the proper venue to appeal a
state court's final judgment. For those reasons, Ms.
Yun's emergent motion for a temporary restraining order
is denied. Because these grounds are legal, and dispositive,
a hearing is not required.
because Ms. Yun is a pro se litigant, and because I
issued an opinion partially dismissing her complaint
yesterday, I will also consider this TRO motion as a motion
for reconsideration. Ms. Yun makes sovereign citizen
arguments already rejected by this court. (Id. p. 3,
¶ 9) (arguing that Ms. Yun is a "special private
citizen" subject to distinct rights and asserting that
defendants forced her "to consent as U.S. person").
standards governing a motion for reconsideration are well
settled. See generally D.N.J. Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy," to be
granted "sparingly." NL Indus. Inc. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J.
1996). Generally, reconsideration is granted in three
scenarios: (1) when there has been an intervening change in
the law; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3)
when necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995);
Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, at *l
(D.N.J. May 21, 2004). Local Rule 7.1(i) requires such a
motion to specifically identify "the matter or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked." Id.; see also
Egloff v. New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard, 684 F.Supp.
1275, 1279 (D.N.J. 1988). Evidence or arguments that were
available at the time of the original decision will not
support a motion for reconsideration. Damiano v. Sony
Music Entm't, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 623, 636 (D.N.J.
1997); see also North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at
1218; Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc.,
2010 WL 5418972, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing P.
Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161
F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001)).
has not presented me with any meritorious reasons to change-
my opinion (DE 29).
I consider Ms. Yun's motion to strike the New Jersey
Defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint. (DE 32).
"As a general matter, motions to strike under Rule 12(f)
are highly disfavored." F.T.C. v. Hope Now
Modifications, LLC, No. CIV. 09-1204 JBS/JS, 2011 WL
883202, at*l (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2011) (citations omitted). In
this case, I will not strike the defendants' motion, but
I will consider Ms. Yun's arguments in her motion to
strike as legal arguments in opposition.
reasons expressed above, the motion of plaintiff (DE 33) to
join Judge Price as a defendant is GRANTED,
the motion of plaintiff (DE 31) for an injunction with
temporary restraints is DENIED, and ...