United States v. Any and All Joint Venture Units of Morgan Interest Holders, 1:20-cv-00334

The United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint (Mar 20, 2020) seeking JV Units in MP KofP JV LLC traceable to seven contributed real properties.
Several claimants (the Moving Parties) moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (alternatively 28 U.S.C. § 1651) to enjoin the government and compel release of distributions (net ordinary proceeds) tied to certain JV Units.
The government later told MP KofP JV LLC it did not object to release of all net ordinary proceeds “paid and payable” to the movants, and contended this mooted the motions for return of property.
The government separately moved for a post-complaint restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A) seeking to restrain specified Class A and Class B JV Units; it relied principally on a prior Stipulated Order from the 7405 Morgan Road action.
Disputes arose over whether the Stipulated Order authorized restraint of Class B units (claimants say it authorized restraint only of equivalent Class A units); some claimants would accept a limited Class A-only restraint, others would not.
The government had an arrest warrant in rem issued and served after procurement by its office from the Clerk (not the judge); the Court concluded that issuance was improper, vacated the writ sua sponte, and ordered the government to notify served parties that the writ is void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motions for return of property are still live	Govt. told JV to release all net ordinary proceeds paid and payable, mooting the motions	Moving Parties accept release as relief if it covers future distributions	Motions denied as moot (Court interprets gov’t communication as disclaiming restraint of distributions; future disputes may be brought later)
Whether a § 983(j)(1)(A) restraining order should issue (scope: Class A vs Class B JV Units; reliance on prior Stipulated Order)	Govt. contends Stipulated Order supports restraint of the JV Units at issue and that claimants agreed	Claimants argue Stipulated Order contemplates restraint only of equivalent Class A Units, not Class B; Oakmonte objects to any restraint not specifically authorized	Motion denied without prejudice — Court finds record insufficient to show Stipulated Order supports the breadth sought; government bears burden (at least probable cause) and may refile with clearer support
Validity of the arrest warrant in rem obtained from the Clerk and served	Govt. obtained and served arrest warrant in rem; later conceded it was not properly issued	Moving Parties argued it was improper and misleading; they sought corrective action	Court sua sponte vacated the arrest warrant in rem and ordered the government to notify all served parties in writing that the warrant is vacated and a legal nullity and to file proof by the deadline

Melrose E. Subdivision, 357 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2004) (probable cause is the proper standard for continuing a pretrial restraining order under § 983(j)(1)(A)).