Langbord v. United States Department of Treasury
798 F. Supp. 2d 607
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- This action involves Langbord claimants challenging government action over the 1933 Double Eagle gold coins and the Government's pursuit of forfeiture.
- The United States seeks to forfeit the coins under CAFRA and also asserts a declaratory judgment claim to determine ownership.
- The Langbords move for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment objecting to the declaratory judgment claim as improper and to a jury trial right.
- The district court previously determined the Government did not delay in seeking declaratory relief in bad faith but misapplied a legal strategy; the court now evaluates availability of declaratory relief and jury trial rights.
- The Government argues CAFRA provides the appropriate remedy while Langbords urge declaratory relief is barred by a special statutory proceeding, if applicable.
- The court concludes that a jury trial right does not attach to the Government's declaratory judgment claim and that declaratory relief is available here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is declaratory relief available here? | Langbords: CAFRA is a special proceeding precluding declaratory relief. | United States: CAFRA does not preclude declaratory relief; need for ownership determination remains. | Yes, declaratory relief available; no preclusion by CAFRA |
| Does the Government's declaratory claim fit an equity pattern to deny a jury trial? | Langbords: jury trial right should attach because relief mirrors legal claims. | United States: claim fits equitable quiet title pattern; no jury trial right attaches. | No jury trial right attaches; claim is equitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1964) (special statutory proceeding context for declaratory relief)
- Lac D'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee v. American Home Assur. Co., 864 F.2d 1033 (3d Cir. 1988) (special statutory proceeding concept in advisory note)
- New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 382 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (CAFRA context and declaratory relief viability)
- McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1964) (declaratory relief exception for necessary relief in civil rights context)
- Deere & Co. v. Van Natta, 660 F.Supp. 433 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (administrative patent proceedings cited as special proceedings)
- Clausell v. Turner, 295 F.Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (habeas-like contexts as declaratory relief not appropriate)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lake Shore Land Co., 610 F.2d 1185 (3d Cir. 1979) (test for whether declaratory action is legal or equitable)
- Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1943) (application of federal common law to ownership and title questions in the context of public property)