United States v. Davis
648 F.3d 84
2d Cir.2011Background
- Two parties claim the same indivisible artwork: Sharyl R. Davis, who purchased Le Marché in 1985, and the United States seeking forfeiture to France.
- Le Marché was stolen from the Musée Faure in 1981 and later sold into the U.S. commerce chain; Davis acquired it long after the theft.
- The government filed a verified forfeiture complaint on November 6, 2006, asserting three claims under §1595a and §981 based on proceeds from the theft.
- District court granted Davis some relief on innocent-owner defenses for §981 claims, but denied it for the §1595a claim and found probable cause for forfeiture on that claim.
- A January 2010 jury found Davis failed to prove the monotype was not stolen and that Guelton transported it in interstate/foreign commerce with knowledge it was stolen; final judgment of forfeiture entered January 19, 2010; attorney’s-fee motion denied May 25, 2010.
- Appeal followed challenging the §1595a framework, CAFRA applicability, constitutional challenges, and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'contrary to law' in §1595a(c)(1)(A) | Davis: 'contrary to law' limits to customs violations. | United States: NSPA violation suffices and provides nexus. | NSPA suffices; 'contrary to law' not restricted to customs violations. |
| Value threshold under NSPA for §1595a | Davis argued value below $5,000 creates no NSPA violation. | Government: proven value meets/exceeds $5,000. | Record supports value at or above $5,000; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Meaning of 'is stolen'—time reference | Davis claims status must be assessed at forfeiture. | Government: status at time of introduction controls. | 'Is stolen' refers to status at time of introduction into the United States. |
| CAFRA innocent-owner defense applicability to §1595a | Davis argues CAFRA innocent-owner defense applies to §1595a. | Government: CAFRA carve-out excludes Title 19; no innocent-owner defense here. | No innocent-owner defense applies to §1595a forfeiture. |
| Burden of proof in §1595a cases | Davis urges CAFRA's burden standards. | Government: pre-CAFRA §1615 burden applies; CAFRA not applicable to §1595a. | Pre-CAFRA burden-shifting under §1615 applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) (remedial customs forfeiture not punitive; excessiveness analysis applicable to customs forfeiture)
- An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) (innocent-owner defenses not available under §1595a)
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1990) (statutory interpretation; same word used consistently)
- United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (fee-shifting guidance for CAFRA contexts)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007) (transient victory not entitling to fees under similar provisions)
- Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (touchstone for determining prevailing party in fee disputes)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration/summary judgment standard considerations)