406 F. App'x 154
9th Cir.2010Background
- DAS Corporation and Optional Capital appeal district court decisions granting the Kim Claimants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and denying Optional’s summary judgment.
- The assets at issue were seized in civil forfeiture actions; competing ownership claims were asserted by the Kim Claimants, DAS, and Optional.
- This case has a lengthy procedural history, including prior decisions Real Property I and Real Property II, and remands for adjudication of ownership claims.
- The district court on remand granted both Kim Claimants’ motions and denied Optional’s summary judgment; it also addressed law-of-the-case issues.
- The court concluded the Government’s case and the ownership claims were improperly intermingled, and remanded to adjudicate competing ownership claims on the disputed properties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case bars DAS/Optional claims on Summary Judgment Properties | DAS/Optional contend law of the case did not adjudicate their ownership claims. | Kim Claimants rely on the memorandum disposition as controlling, precluding further litigation against properties. | Remand; law of the case did not bar the ownership claims. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed DAS/Optional claims against Summary Judgment Properties | DAS/Optional allege they retain ownership rights and should be adjudicated. | Court should rely on law-of-the-case and prior dismissal of these claims. | Error; remand required to adjudicate ownership claims. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for Kim Claimants on May 2004 Properties | DAS/Optional raise independent ownership defenses against May 2004 Properties. | Summary judgment should be sustained against DAS/Optional based on government burden. | Reversed and remanded for adjudication of DAS/Optional claims. |
| Whether Optional’s summary-judgment motion should have been denied | Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Kim’s fiduciary duties and related defenses. | No reversible error; issues depend on government’s case and evidence. | Affirmed; no reversible error on Optional’s motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, 504 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2007) (prudential standing requires more than a generalized grievance)
- Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1987) (zone-of-interests test for standing)
- United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court retains jurisdiction to resolve competing ownership after forfeiture actions)
- United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 298 Fed.Appx. 545 (9th Cir. 2008) (Real Property II; unpublished memorandum disposition sustaining some evidentiary rulings)