335 P.3d 545
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2013 DPS stopped Fernando Peña, found large bundled currency and seized the currency and his truck; state served notice of pending forfeiture and filed an in rem forfeiture complaint alleging racketeering. The matters were consolidated at Peña’s request.
- Peña filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to plead facts tying the property to racketeering and that the state could not show probable cause; he also filed a motion for summary judgment attaching evidence outside the pleadings.
- The trial court set an evidentiary hearing; the parties disputed whether the hearing would address a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, a probable-cause inquiry, or a preponderance-of-the-evidence forfeiture hearing under A.R.S. § 13-4311.
- At the hearing the court denied Peña’s summary judgment motion as premature, heard live testimony and exhibits, then denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion based on a finding of probable cause and ordered Peña to file an answer within 20 days.
- The state moved for an uncontested forfeiture, asserting no timely answer had been filed; Peña filed an answer within 20 days of the hearing and argued the Rule 12 motion tolled his answer time. The trial court struck Peña’s answer as untimely and defective and ordered the state to proceed with an uncontested forfeiture.
- Peña appealed; the appellate court vacated the denial of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the order striking the answer, concluding the trial court applied the wrong standard and adjudicated factual issues beyond the pleadings without adequate notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-4311(H) permits a summary judgment motion before a responsive pleading | Peña: his motion should be treated under Rule 56 because he attached outside materials to the 12(b)(6) motion | State: forfeiture statutes prohibit summary judgment before an answer; "responsive pleading" excludes motions to dismiss | Held: "responsive pleading" excludes a Rule 12 motion; § 13-4311(H) precludes summary judgment before an answer (motion denial affirmed) |
| Whether trial court correctly denied Rule 12(b)(6) motion after receiving evidence and finding probable cause | Peña: the court should have decided sufficiency of complaint under Rule 12 standard; taking evidence and applying probable-cause standard was error | State: hearing on probable cause was appropriate and evidence supported forfeiture | Held: trial court erred by going beyond pleadings, taking evidence and deciding probable cause on the 12(b)(6) motion; denial vacated and case remanded |
| Whether Peña’s answer was timely (tolling by Rule 12 motion and Rule 12(a)(3)(A) deadline) | Peña: his answer, filed within 20 days of the evidentiary hearing, was timely because the Rule 12 motion tolled the time to answer | State: Rule 12 motion does not extend the statutory time to file a claim/answer; Rule 12(a)(3)(A) required prompt answer after notice of court action; also argued verification defect | Held: because the court applied improper procedure, its order striking the answer is vacated; on remand court must give Peña additional time to answer if the motion is again denied |
| Whether Peña received adequate notice of the nature of the hearing (due process) | Peña: hearing notice and orders were unclear; he lacked disclosures and opportunity for meaningful cross-examination | State: evidence presented did not affect complaint sufficiency; hearing notice was adequate | Held: court’s failure to clarify hearing nature and to afford Peña adequate opportunity to contest evidence was problematic; due process concerns support vacatur and restoration to pre-hearing posture |
Key Cases Cited
- Desert Mountain Props. Ltd. P’ship v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 225 Ariz. 194, 236 P.3d 421 (discussing standard of review for summary judgment rulings)
- Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 211 Ariz. 427, 122 P.3d 6 (same)
- Graham v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 120 Ariz. 275, 585 P.2d 884 (motion to dismiss not a "responsive pleading")
- Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 169 Ariz. 156, 817 P.2d 960 (motion to dismiss does not toll statutory claim/answer deadlines in forfeiture context)
- In re Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency, 217 Ariz. 199, 171 P.3d 1240 (probable cause standard in forfeiture seizure context)
- Matter of U.S. Currency In the Amount of $315,900.00, 183 Ariz. 208, 902 P.2d 351 (distinguishing probable cause findings from sufficiency of pleading)
- Lund v. Donahoe, 227 Ariz. 572, 261 P.3d 456 (due process requires clear notice when an evidentiary hearing is intended)