On Friday, October 2, 2026, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a default judgment of more than $5.5 million against two cryptocurrency platforms, BitLeague LLC and Digitamex LLC, in a case brought by a customer who says he lost access to his digital assets. The order is signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney.
Plaintiff Xinjun Liang was awarded $5,530,020.46, plus pre-judgment interest at 10 percent annually, post-judgment interest at 4.48 percent annually, and $402 in court costs.
According to the amended complaint, Liang bought, sold, stored, and deposited Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether through the companies between February and December 2020. In January 2021, he found his account locked and frozen, and his requests for return of his assets were refused. He also alleged the companies largely failed to purchase the cryptocurrencies he had instructed.
The court found that when Liang tried to withdraw funds on January 14, 2021, his account held 85 Bitcoin, 1,965 Ethereum and 207.8 USDT, worth a combined $5,530,020.46 that day based on evidence he submitted. Under California law, damages for conversion are measured by the property’s value at the time of conversion.
Liang sued on April 2, 2021, asserting conversion, breach of contract, deceit by concealment, unjust enrichment, and negligence. He sought default judgment on the first four; negligence was not part of the request. The defendants, served May 17, 2021, appeared and took part in the case for several years.
In January 2026, their attorney moved to withdraw, saying the companies had not communicated with him for more than a year despite repeated attempts. The court granted the motion on January 14, 2026. No new counsel appeared, and the clerk entered default on July 27, 2026. Liang had filed his application on July 23; the defendants did not respond.
Weighing the seven factors from Eitel v. McCool, the court found each favored default judgment. It concluded Liang established the elements of the four claims, that the sum sought was tailored to his losses, and that the default could not be attributed to excusable neglect because the defendants had actively litigated before stopping.
Because the parties’ agreement set no interest rate, California’s 10 percent legal rate applies from January 14, 2021, through the date of judgment. The post-judgment rate follows federal law, which ties it to the one-year Treasury yield, and the costs reflect the filing fee.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment