Sun v. Mo et al

Filing 70

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Sun's motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her address of record. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/28/2025) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
YI SUN,
Plaintiff,
-v.HUGH H. MO; TSAI CHUNG CHAO;
MAYOR ERIC LEROY ADAMS; THE LAW
FIRM OF HUGH H. MO, P.C.; LI DA SUN;
THE TOP ASIAN UNIFORMED NYPD
OFFICERS, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF
THE NYPD ASIAN-AMERICAN POLICE
EXECUTIVES COUNCIL, AAPEX;
NATURO-MEDICAL HEALTH CARE, P.C.;
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DET. STEVEN
MATTHEWS; DET. BRYAN TROCKEL;
DET. BRUNO VIDAL; SAM TSANG;
DETECTIVE OR SUPERVISOR IN 72
PRECINCT; and LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY
CAI,

24 Civ. 3630 (KPF)
ORDER

Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
Plaintiff Yi Sun (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Sun”), who is appearing pro se, filed a
motion to stay the Court’s December 26, 2024 Order. (Dkt. #68). The
December 26, 2024 Order dismissed the action due to Ms. Sun’s continued
failure to comply with Court orders. (Dkt. #67).
As described in that Order, in September 2024, Defendant City of New
York (the “City”) requested that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide the City
with a § 160.50 unsealing release, which was necessary in order for the City to
conduct its investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations, and copies of which had
been sent to Plaintiff in March, April, July, and September 2024. (Id. at 1-2).

The Court repeatedly ordered Ms. Sun to provide the executed release to the
City, so that the case could proceed. (Dkt. #28, 50, 60). The Court cautioned
Ms. Sun that continued failure to comply with the Court’s orders would result
in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. (Dkt. #50, 60). Ms. Sun did not
at any point represent to the Court why she would not provide the release or
that she needed an extension of time to do so and ultimately did not provide
the release. Having attempted to implement less drastic sanctions to no avail,
the Court dismissed the case. (Dkt. #67).
Plaintiff now asks that the Order dismissing the case be stayed, and
alleges that the Court issued the “self-serving” Order, because the Court is
prejudiced against Ms. Sun. (Dkt. #68 at 2). These allegations are similar to
those made against the Court in Ms. Sun’s motions for recusal. (See Dkt. #21,
42). But, as in those motions for recusal, Ms. Sun has provided no reasoning
to support her claim that this Court is prejudiced against Plaintiff. Indeed, the
Court has no such personal bias or prejudice against Ms. Sun and dismissed
the action because of Ms. Sun’s repeated failure to comply with Court orders
that were necessary to the continued prosecution of the case. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Ms. Sun’s motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy
of this Order to Plaintiff at her address of record.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
New York, New York
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge
2