United States v. Kiyoko Ito
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars & Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency (District Court, N.D. Iowa 2015)
- Prepared Food Photos Inc v. Pool World Inc (District Court, E.D. Washington 2024)
- E-Z Living LLC v. A10 Capital, LLC (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2022)
- United States v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars & Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency (8th Cir. 2016)
- United States v. $8,040.00 United States Currency (District Court, W.D. New York 2025)
- United States v. Ross (2d Cir. 2025)
- Coupa Software Incorporated v. DCR Workforce, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2023)
- Eisen v. Day (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2023)
- Breaking Code Silence v. Papciak (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Glenn and Kiyoko Ito appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of the government’s civil forfeiture action. We vacate the district court’s dismissal be *842 cause it was based on an erroneous understanding of the law.
“When ruling on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court must determine whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law. See id.
The district court did not recognize that dismissal without prejudice precludes prevailing party status. See Cadkin v. Loose, 569 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009); Oscar v. Alaska Dep’t of Educ. & Early Dev., 541 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Miles v. California, 320 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 2003). Without prevailing party status, the Itos were unable to bring their attorney’s fees motion under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1) (2000). The Itos suffered plain legal prejudice in losing their ability to move for attorney’s fees.
We VACATE the district court’s dismissal without prejudice and REMAND with instructions to dismiss with prejudice.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.