Yong Son v. City of Philadelphia

── Yong Son v. City of Philadelphia ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General CLD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2661 ___________ YONG CHUL SON, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA; SEPTA TRANSPORTATION, PA; GARY BROWNSTEIN, ESQ.; COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:24-cv-04925) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 23, 2026 Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 18, 2026) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Yong Chul Son appeals pro se from the District Court’s order denying his untimely motion for summary judgment. We will affirm. This matter stems from the death of Son’s mother in a 1987 bus accident in Philadelphia. Son retained an attorney to file a wrongful death and survival action, but counsel failed to timely prosecute the case. Son then hired Gary Brownstein, Esquire, in 1991 to file a malpractice complaint against his first attorney, whose lack of professional liability insurance significantly curtailed the recoverable award. Nonetheless, the parties negotiated a $50,000 settlement, which the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County approved in 2003. See Son v. Bernard, Civ. No. 1991-02009, Dkt. #49 (C.C.P. Montgomery Cnty.) (Mar. 7, 2003 order). Son later grew dissatisfied with the settlement amount and came to believe that he was misled about how much the case was worth. He filed five nearly identical lawsuits in a variety of courts over the past decade against Attorney Brownstein, the City of Philadelphia, SEPTA, and the Common Pleas Court (“Defendants” or “Appellees”). The first four actions were dismissed in summary fashion as filed beyond the statute of limitations, for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, on immunity grounds, or under the doctrine of res judicata.1 Son commenced his latest lawsuit in September 2024 by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed Son’s initial pleadings for want of jurisdiction but gave him 1 See, e.g., Son v. City of Phila., Civ. No. 2:16-cv-04011 (E.D. Pa.); Son v. City of Phila., Civ. No. 2:17-cv-01641 (D.N.J.); Son v. City of Phila., Civ. No. 1:23-cv-09541 (S.D.N.Y.); Son v. Phila. Mayor’s Office, Civ. No. 2016-21973 (C.C.P. Montgomery Cnty.). 2 an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiency. Defendants moved to dismiss Son’s amended complaint, and the District Court ordered him to respond. He did not. Consequently, on February 13, 2025, the court granted the motions as uncontested and dismissed the case with prejudice. Son did not appeal. Almost five months later, he moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied his motions as untimely and procedurally improper. Son now appeals from that order. SEP