United States v. $133,420.00 in United States Currency
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3388
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. §881(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. §983 based on currency seized from Louis's car after a canine alert.
- Louis filed a verified claim asserting ownership/possessory interest; government served Rule G(6)(a) interrogatories and requests for admission.
- Louis responded with objections and a limited answer: ownership/possession but did not provide detailed factual basis for ownership through interrogatories.
- The district court struck Louis's interrogatory response as improper use of the Fifth Amendment and determined the remaining evidence failed to show standing.
- The court treated the government's strike as a summary-judgment dispositive ruling and granted summary judgment for forfeiture; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The central issue is whether Louis has Article III standing to contest the forfeiture, based on ownership or possessory interests, given the struck evidence and the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking Louis's interrogatory response was proper | Louis contends the district court abused its discretion by striking the response and impeding his standing claim. | Government argues the Fifth Amendment invocation to test ownership justified striking the response to prevent distortion of testimony. | No abuse; district court properly struck the response. |
| Whether Louis has standing to contest forfeiture | Louis argues the verified claim and interrogatory response establish ownership/possession and hence standing. | Government contends bare possession or vague ownership is insufficient; standing requires clear evidence. | Louis failed to establish standing; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the verified claim constitutes admissible evidence at summary judgment | Louis maintains the verified claim is evidence supporting standing. | Government treats the claim as evidence but finds it insufficient for standing due to lack of specificity. | Verified claim is evidence but not, alone, enough to create a genuine issue of material fact on standing. |
| Scope of Supplemental Rule G(6)(a) interrogatories | Louis argues Rule G(6)(a) only permits identity and interest questions, not circumnstantial inquiries. | Government contends Rule G(6)(a) permits information bearing on the claimant's standing, including relation to the property. | Rule G(6)(a) properly interpreted to bear on standing; court did not err in allowing broad inquiries. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (ownership at motion to dismiss suffices for standing)
- United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994) (ownership or possession adequate standing at early stage)
- United States v. $515,060.42, 152 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 1998) (standing burden on claimant; possession may suffice with evidence)
- United States v. $148,840.00, 521 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment standard for standing; scintilla evidence insufficient)
- United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment requires more than mere allegations of ownership)
- FTC v. Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 1997) (conclusory testimony insufficient without supporting evidence)
- United States v. 42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002) (unexplained possession not enough to establish standing at summary judgment)
- United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1942) (fifth amendment considerations in civil proceedings)