John H. Chun
How Judge Chun decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Distinguishes adverse authority on the specific factual posture rather than treating it as controlling -- e.g. rejecting Amazon's analogy to a prior W.D. Wash. dismissal (Viveros v. Audible) because the disclosure context differed. FTC v. Amazon (Prime/ROSCA), Order Dkt. 165 (2024-05-28).
“Here, the Prime upsells occurred while the consumer was attempting to make a purchase on Amazon's marketplace, not start a Prime free trial.”
Points non-parties seeking to participate toward the amicus route rather than allowing intervention -- denied the American Booksellers Association's motion to intervene in the FTC antitrust case and invited an amicus motion instead.
“ORDER denying ABA's 205 Motion to Intervene. As suggested by, Defendant, Dkt. # 233 at 15, if ABA wishes to submit an amicus brief, it may move the Court to do so.”
Cautions
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion Chun resolves factual/contextual ambiguity for the non-movant and is reluctant to decide consumer-perception questions as a matter of law -- counsel moving to dismiss a consumer-protection complaint should expect the disclosures to be read in the consumer's actual context. FTC v. Amazon (Prime/ROSCA), Order Dkt. 165 (2024-05-28).
“within the context consumers were presented with the UPDP, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the disclosures would be clear and conspicuous to any reasonable consumer.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to intervene N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER denying Defendants' 83 84 Motions to Dismiss for the reasons discussed herein. Signed by Judge John H. Chun.”
“SEALED ORDER re Defendant's 127 MOTION to Dismiss & Plaintiffs' 167 MOTION to Bifurcate. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 127 Motion to Dismiss as described herein. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs until 10/31/2024, leave to file a Second Amended Complaint as to any claims dismissed without prejudice.”
“ORDER denying ABA's 205 Motion to Intervene. As suggested by, Defendant, Dkt. # 233 at 15, if ABA wishes to submit an amicus brief, it may move the Court to do so. Signed by Judge John H. Chun.”
Read for coverage, EXCLUDED from motion stats (procedural IFP/screening, not a party merits motion). Pro se prisoner civil-rights case referred to MJ S. Kate Vaughan; Chun adopted her R&R denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Quote: 'Given the foregoing, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R. Plaintiff's application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.' Illustrates Chun's prisoner/IFP workflow (R&Rs by MJ Vaughan; 28 U.S.C. 1915A screening).