Quan
Quan v. BAM Trading Services, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging claims related to his “Binance US” account. Dkt. 1-1, Compl. ¶ 6. That account was allegedly “frozen due to [a] Los Angeles Sherrif[f]’s investigation,” as discovered by Plaintiff around August 30, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 8–10, 13. Plaintiff then alleges that he “contacted Binance US immediately” and “Binance US did not response until February 2, 2023.” Id. ¶ 9. On October 12, 2023, BAM removed this action to federal court, and on November 16, 2023, BAM filed a motion to dismiss, for which the deadline to respond was November 30, 2023. Dkts. 1, 8. Plaintiff did not file a timely response to BAM’s motion, and on December 7, 2023, BAM filed a timely reply. Dkt. 12. On January 4, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause, directing Plaintiff to explain why he did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff filed a response at dkt. 18, and the Court allowed BAM an opportunity to reply to that response, which BAM did at dkt. 20.
II. DISCUSSION
BAM relies on two bases for dismissal — lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state
a claim. The Court…