Myong Jin Joun
How Judge Joun rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Joun
Myong Jin Joun is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Joun received a commission on July 14, 2023.
Judge Joun's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Joun, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Standing Order - Courtroom Opportunities for Inexperienced Attorneys ↗
- Standing Order - Motion Practice ↗
- Order Setting Criminal Jury Trial ↗
- Order Setting Civil Jury Trial ↗
- Notice of Scheduling Conference ↗
Key rules
Motions
Reply briefs need no advance leave; surreplies require leave.
“I allow reply briefs without advance leave of court. However, parties must seek leave of court if they wish to file surreply briefs. See my Standing Order on Motions Practice.”
Discovery
After an unsuccessful meet and confer, parties are encouraged to email a joint one-to-two-page discovery issue summary to the courtroom deputy and request a Zoom conference.
“I expect that the parties will work cooperatively during discovery and that they will be able to work through most issues on their own. But if, after a meet and confer, they are not able to resolve an issue, I encourage the parties to jointly summarize the issue (1-2 pages) and email it to my Courtroom Deputy and request a Zoom conference.”
Conferences
Absent special circumstances, propose a schedule that aims to make the case trial-ready within a year of the first scheduling conference.
“Yes, I have the clerk issue a ‘Notice of Scheduling Conference’ in advance of the conference that includes a template for a scheduling order. See response to Q2 below. Absent special circumstances, the schedule proposed by the parties should endeavor to have the case ready for trial within 1 year of the initial scheduling conference.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Joun decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In State of New York v. McMahon, Joun described the challenged reductions and transfers as an attempt to shut down the Department of Education without congressional approval and granted preliminary relief to the states and schools.
“This case arises out of an attempt by Defendants to shut down the Department without Congressional approval.”
In a 2025 immigration detention case, Joun relied on the petitioner’s earlier recognizance release and later arrest under a detention warrant to find him eligible for a bond hearing. The order required a hearing within ten days; it did not grant bond itself.
“subject to Section 1226(a)’s discretionary detention framework and is thus eligible for bond.”
Procedural preferences
In Nantasket Management v. Velocity Commercial Capital, he granted sanctions against the plaintiff and its counsel after finding frivolous claims, false allegations, and an improper effort to delay foreclosure, and directed the clerk to send the decision to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers.
“Velocity's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED ... The Clerk is also directed to provide the Board of Bar Overseers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a copy of this decision”
In Butter v. Hartford Life, Joun denied both sides' summary-judgment motions in an ERISA benefits dispute and remanded for further review because the plan administrator had not complied with ERISA guidelines.
“Where the plan administrator has failed to comply with the ERISA guidelines, remand for further review is appropriate.”
In Johnson v. United States Department of Justice, Joun denied a prisoner’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees without prejudice because it lacked the required prison account statement.
“Mr. Johnson did not submit this required prison account statement. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Consolidated Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. No. 69; 25-cv-10677 Doc. No. 25], is GRANTED. The Department must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the DEOA and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. No. 18], is GRANTED. OCR must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the DEOA and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress.”
“For the above reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the above reasons, Velocity's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED, and Nantasket's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Nantasket's claims against Velocity are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Velocity's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED ... Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs will be awarded to Velocity for the time and monies it was forced to expend to oppose Nantasket's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and filing its Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions.”
“Velocity's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED, and Nantasket's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
“Hartford's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 36], is DENIED. ... The case is remanded to the plan administrator for further review in accordance with this decision.”
“Ms. Butter's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 38], is similarly DENIED. The case is remanded to the plan administrator for further review in accordance with this decision.”
“RMB's motion for partial summary judgment, [Doc. No. 166], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“171 Atlantic's first and second motions for partial summary judgment, [Doc. Nos. 137 and 172], are DENIED.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss, [Doc. No. 6], is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 8], is GRANTED. Counts I, IV, and V are hereby dismissed. Defendants WBZ, CBS, Paramount, Draper, and Roderick shall file an Answer to the remaining Counts in the Complaint within fourteen days.”
“For the above reasons, AGLIC's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to strike and motion for summary judgment, [Doc. Nos. 29, 39], are GRANTED.”
“For the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the above reasons, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Because Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, Mr. Haley's Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Motion for Sanctions are DENIED as moot.”
“Because Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, Mr. Haley's Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Motion for Sanctions are DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 189 days (N = 6).
- Joun's docket includes constitutional and administrative-law challenges involving federal education policy, False Claims Act cases involving Harvard and Teva Pharmaceutical, employee-benefit disputes, criminal prosecutions, civil-rights actions, alien-detainee habeas petitions, Social Security appeals, real-property matters, and insurance litigation.
- These examples illustrate the range of matters reviewed and are not a quantitative measure of his full caseload.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 18 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Joun: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Joun with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Joun, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Joun's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace