United States v. Angela Aguilar
782 F.3d 1101
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2008 the government seized about $2.4 million in a brokerage account held in the name of Grupo Internacional de Asesores S.A. (Grupo) as part of an FCPA/money‑laundering investigation involving alleged bribes to Mexican officials.
- Angela Gomez Aguilar was criminally prosecuted, convicted by a jury in 2011, and entered into an agreement not to contest forfeiture of the Grupo account in exchange for a recommended sentence; her conviction was later vacated and ultimately dismissed following a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.
- Separately, the government filed a civil in rem forfeiture complaint for the Grupo funds; the clerk entered defaults against Angela, Enrique Sr., Grupo, and other claimants, and the district court later entered default judgment for the government.
- Angela, Enrique Jr., and Grupo moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to set aside the default judgment for excusable neglect; the district court denied the motion after applying the three Falk/Mesle factors (culpable conduct, meritorious defense, prejudice).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, affirmed, and held the district court did not err in refusing relief because Appellants failed to show a meritorious defense (notably they lacked an ownership interest in the seized funds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had to state on the record that the case presented “extreme circumstances” before denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief | Appellants: failure to recite “extreme circumstances” requires reversal (relying on Mesle) | Government: no magic‑words requirement; application of Falk factors suffices | Court: No. Applying Falk/Mesle factors is required but district courts need not articulate the phrase “extreme circumstances.” |
| Whether Appellants showed a meritorious defense sufficient to set aside default | Appellants: innocent‑owner defense and complaint fails to state a claim | Government: Appellants are shareholders, not owners of Grupo’s assets; complaint meets Supplemental Rule G pleading standard | Court: Appellants have no meritorious defense — shareholders lack ownership of corporate funds; complaint satisfies the low Rule G pleading threshold. |
| Whether Supplemental Rule G(2)(f) required more detailed pleading than the government provided | Appellants: complaint insufficiently particular; tracing/lowest intermediate balance issues undermine pleading | Government: complaint mirrors criminal allegations and permits reasonable belief and meaningful investigation | Court: Complaint met the Rule G(2)(f) standard; factual disputes (e.g., portion of funds tainted) are for trial. |
| Whether failure to reach other Falk factors (culpability, prejudice, standing) required remand | Appellants: district court’s cursory analysis insufficient | Government: lack of meritorious defense is dispositive; other factors not necessary | Court: Because no meritorious defense existed, refusal to set aside default was proper; other factors not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (sets out Falk three‑factor test for excusable neglect in default‑judgment context)
- Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1984) (articulates policy that default judgments are drastic and adopts the three‑factor test)
- United States v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862 (4th Cir. 2002) (interprets Supplemental Rule E(2)(a) and informs Rule G(2)(f) pleading standard)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (corporate separateness: shareholders do not own corporate assets)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard for reviewing factual findings and abuse of discretion)