Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill

Background

Luo opened a cryptocurrency trading account with Binance in 2021. Binance locked the account in April 2022. According to Luo, she learned that Vuong, an officer with the Pleasant Hill Police Department, had commanded Binance to lock the account because of an ongoing criminal investigation. Luo alleged that the account remained frozen and contained $9.5 million in cryptocurrency.

Luo initially sued Vuong, the City of Pleasant Hill, and the Pleasant Hill Police Department. She later filed a first amended complaint solely against Vuong, alleging an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Vuong answered the amended complaint. The parties later requested several continuances while related state criminal proceedings were pending, and the court granted those requests.

In a June 2024 case-management statement, the parties reported that Vuong had obtained a federal seizure order from the District of Columbia to freeze the funds in Luo’s Binance account. Luo then sought additional time to request permission to amend her complaint, stating that she intended to ask the District of Columbia court to transfer the case there. The court denied that motion without prejudice because Luo had not complied with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. Luo made no further appearances.

Failure to Prosecute

Vuong filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 9, 2025. Luo did not file an opposition as required by the court’s local rules. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Luo to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. The court ordered her to file a declaration and either an opposition or a statement that she did not oppose Vuong’s motion by February 6, 2025. The court warned that failing to file a written response would be treated as an admission that she did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. No response was received.

The court applied five factors used when considering dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to follow court orders: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendant, whether less severe measures were available, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court found that the first factor favored dismissal because Luo had not prosecuted the case. The second favored dismissal because her failures to respond delayed the case and consumed court resources. The third favored dismissal because Luo provided no explanation for her failure to respond, creating a presumption of prejudice to Vuong. The fourth favored dismissal because the court had already warned Luo and issued an order to show cause, without receiving a response. The court also found that another order was likely to be ineffective. The fifth factor generally favored deciding cases on their merits, but the court gave that factor little weight because Luo’s failure to meet deadlines prevented the case from moving toward a merits decision.

Disposition

Judge Thomas Hixson found that at least four of the five factors favored dismissal. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s deadlines and orders. The court stated that dismissal without prejudice was a less severe alternative that minimized potential prejudice to Vuong and preserved Luo’s ability to seek relief. The clerk was directed to close the file. The court did not decide the merits of Luo’s Fourth Amendment claim or Vuong’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.