88 F. Supp. 3d 1332
M.D. Fla.2015Background
- In June 2013 the United States seized 34 luxury vehicles pursuant to warrants and filed a civil in rem forfeiture complaint alleging fraud, money laundering, and related offenses. Eight of those vehicles were claimed by claimant JITCO Group Limited (JITCO).
- The government’s operative complaint sought forfeiture under various federal statutes; JITCO intervened as a claimant, answered, and filed a counterclaim regarding the eight vehicles (alleging tortious interference, conversion, demurrage, and seeking damages under the FTCA).
- The court severed the claims related to the eight JITCO vehicles into a separate case (this action) and the government moved to dismiss JITCO’s counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The United States argued (1) civil forfeiture is an in rem action against property, so claimants are not defendants and cannot file counterclaims against the government, and (2) even if permissible, JITCO failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA (alternative jurisdictional argument).
- JITCO argued that Supplemental Rule G incorporates the Federal Rules where not otherwise addressed, that Rule 13(a) permits compulsory counterclaims by a pleading claimant, and cited circuit/district decisions suggesting counterclaims may be allowed in some forfeiture contexts.
- The court reviewed authority and concluded claimants generally cannot assert counterclaims against the United States in in rem civil forfeiture proceedings; it granted the government’s motion and dismissed JITCO’s counterclaim without reaching the FTCA exhaustion issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (JITCO) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claimant in an in rem civil forfeiture action may assert an in personam counterclaim against the United States | Supplemental Rule G incorporates the FRCP; Rule 13(a) makes counterclaims compulsory and JITCO is a pleader and opposing party | Forfeiture is in rem against property (the defendant); claimant is not a defendant so there is no claim to counter; Rule 13(d) and Rule G do not permit counterclaims against the U.S. | Court held claimants generally may not file counterclaims against the United States in civil forfeiture actions and dismissed the counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. One Lot of U.S. Currency ($68,000), 927 F.2d 30 (1st Cir. 1991) (forfeiture is in rem and a claimant is not a defendant so there is no claim to counter)
- United States v. One Lear Jet Aircraft, 836 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1988) (discusses limits on in personam claims against the government in forfeiture context)
- United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 662 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 1981) (recognizes existence of claimant counterclaims in forfeiture proceedings in certain factual contexts)
- Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. Barge KATY-B, 427 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2005) (addresses procedural posture where claimant’s counterclaim remained pending; did not definitively endorse counterclaims against the U.S.)
- Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938) (historical discussion of cross-actions and personal jurisdiction; court refused to extend it to permit claimants’ in personam counterclaims here)