Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury
749 F. Supp. 2d 268
E.D. Pa.2010Background
- Langbords surrendered ten 1933 Double Eagles to the U.S. Mint in 2004 for testing and possible resolution.
- Mint authenticated the coins in 2005 but did not return them or initiate forfeiture.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2006 alleging CAFRA, APA, Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, plus common-law replevin and conversion.
- In 2009 the court ordered forfeiture proceedings to remedy constitutional violations and allowed the government to file a forfeiture complaint.
- Two months later the government sought to file a multi-count complaint adding replevin/declaratory claims against the Langbords and a John Doe declaratory claim against others with possible possession of similar coins.
- The court must decide whether to grant leave to amend, and whether to dismiss the government’s claim of interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts II and III may be added via counterclaims | Langbords argue no counterclaims; prejudice/feasibility concerns. | Government argues Rules changes allow freely granting leave to amend if justice requires. | Count III granted; Count II denied. |
| Whether John Doe joinder for Count IV is proper | Langbords contend Rule 20 not satisfied; joinder unfair. | Government contends Rule 20 permits joinder for common questions. | Joinder denied; Count IV Baseless under Rule 20. |
| Whether the Government’s claim of interest should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Claim of interest lacks case/controversy; government cannot sue itself. | Claiming interest aligns with forfeiture procedures and constitutional standing. | Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss granted; lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend freely when justice requires absent undue prejudice or delay)
- Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406 (3d Cir. 1993) (prejudice is the touchstone for denial of an amendment)
- Cureton v. Nat'l Col. Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001) (delay must cause undue burden; substantial delay may be excused by lack of prejudice)
- Dole v. Arco, 921 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1990) (prejudice and discovery costs are key in evaluating amendments)
- Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 137 (1962) (standing and case/controversy considerations govern suit viability)
- King v. Pepsi Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 86 F.R.D. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (Rule 20 same transaction elements; permissive joinder judged for relatedness)
- Cooper v. Fitzgerald, 266 F.R.D. 86 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (Rule 20 joinder analysis; later severance if not met)
- Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (broader scope of Rule 20 factors and fairness considerations)
- Gibbs v. United States, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (broad discretion in joinder of claims consistent with fairness)