Lai Lau v. Bin Ke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1454
LAI LAU,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BIN KE,
Defendant - Appellant.
------------------------------
PROFESSOR JAMES SCOTT BALLENGER,
Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Ivan Darnell Davis, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00333-IDD)
Argued: January 29, 2026 Decided: February 6, 2026
Before AGEE, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished order.
ARGUED: Madelyn Forbes, Margaret Fox, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL
OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel. Shaoming
Cheng, CHEN YUNG LAW PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J.
Scott Ballenger, Catherine E. Stetson, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF

-- 1 of 3 --

2
VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Court-Assigned Amicus
Counsel.
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Bin Ke, proceeded pro se in a civil action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appellee, Lai Lau, sued Mr. Ke, raising various
causes of action, including breach of contract, arising from a transfer of money from her
bank account to Mr. Ke, which he ultimately used to pay off the mortgage on his personal
residence. In her verified complaint and throughout all pretrial proceedings and dispositive
motions practice, Ms. Lau maintained that she did not authorize Mr. Ke to transfer the
money and that she did not know about the transfer until months later. At trial, however,
Ms. Lau’s factual representations and theory of liability completely shifted. She
represented for the first time that she did consent to the transfer, and the funds were to be
used to pay off Mr. Ke’s mortgage as a condition of the marriage of the parties and Ms.
Lau being added to the deed of the residence. But Ms. Lau never moved to amend her
complaint. In the end, a jury found for Ms. Lau and awarded her $412,663.82 in
compensatory damages. The district court entered judgment and Mr. Ke appealed.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
On appeal, Mr. Ke raises several arguments, including that he was highly prejudiced
by the amendment of the complaint at trial in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15.*
Based on our review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude
that Ms. Lau’s constructive amendment of her complaint was not in compliance with the
requirements of Rule 15 and was prejudicial. We therefore vacate the district court’s
judgment in favor of Ms. Lau and remand this case for further proceedings and a new trial.
Entered at the direction of Judge Agee, with the concurrence of Judge Thacker and
Judge Quattlebaum.
VACATED AND REMANDED
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi
Clerk
* Mr. Ke raised several additional claims of error, but we do not address any of those
in light of our decision to vacate and remand under Rule 15. The district court can address
any remaining issues in the first instance upon retrial.

-- 3 of 3 --