Jung et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 22

ORDER 1. Upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) for clear error and manifest injustice, the R&R is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. Plaintiffs "Request for Preliminary Injunction" (Doc. 4) is DENIED. 2. Due to the filing by Plaintiff of an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Defendant Zulick's first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 3. Due to the filing by Plaintiff of an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Magistrate Judge M ehalchick's R&R (Doc. 14) recommending dismissal of the original complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The action shall be remanded to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for the preparation of anew R&R addressing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 4.In l ight of Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis and the Court having not completed the screening process of Plaintiffs amended complaint, nor the Court having ordered Plaintiffs complaint or amended complaint to be served on any defendant, Defendant Z ulick's second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is DISMISSED AS PREMATURE. Should the Court allow Plaintiffs amended complaint to proceed and order that it be served on the defendants, Defendant Zulick may file a motion to dismiss or any other appropriate filing at that time. 5. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings consistent with this Order.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/11/6 (jfg)

I
!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GLORIA SUN JUNG,
Plaintiff,

v.

3:16·CV·704
(JUDGE MARIANI)

BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER

The background of this Order is as follows:
On April 27, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Gloria Sun Jung filed acomplaint (Doc. 1), and two
days thereafter filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 4). In June, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick granted Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
10). As a result, the Magistrate Judge performed a review of the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) prior to authorizing the service of process. On August 2,2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued two Reports and Recommendations ("R&R"), one which
recommended denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 13) and the other
which recommended dismissing Plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend certain claims
(Doc. 14). Following the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, Plaintiff filed a "Judicial
Notice and Cognizance - Demand Recuse the Magistrate and Replace with Article III Judge
for Presiding Case" (Doc. 15), an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) and an unintelligible

I

t

!

document entitled "Judicial Notice and Cognizance" (Doc. 19). Plaintiff did not file any

objections to either R&R.
Despite no evidence of the complaint having been served on any defendant, on
August 10, 2016, prior to the plaintiff filing her amended complaint, Arthur Zulick, one of
approximately 20 defendants named in the complaint, filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16).
Defendant Zulick filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) following the filing of Plaintiffs
amended complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS

DAY OF OCTOBER, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:
1. Upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation (Doc.
13) for clear error and manifest injustice, the R&R is ADOPTED for the reasons
stated therein. Plaintiffs "Request for Preliminary Injunction" (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
2. Due to the filing by Plaintiff of an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Defendant Zulick's
first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
3. Due to the filing by Plaintiff of an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick's R&R (Doc. 14) recommending dismissal of the original complaint (Doc.
1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The action shall be remanded to Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick for the preparation of a new R&R addressing Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint.

2

4. In light of Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis and the Court having not completed
the screening process of Plaintiffs amended complaint, nor the Court having ordered
Plaintiffs complaint or amended complaint to be served on any defendant,
Defendant Zulick's second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is DISMISSED AS

PREMATURE. Should the Court allow Plaintiffs amended complaint to proceed and
order that it be served on the defendants, Defendant Zulick may file a motion to
dismiss or any other appropriate filing at that time.
5. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings
consistent with this Order.

3