United States v. Funds in the Amount of $239,400
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13072
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- CAFRA shifts the burden to the government to prove forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Rule G(9) grants a jury trial on forfeiture; the district court required claimants to prove their claims were 'legitimate' to show standing.
- Valdes, traveling with $239,400, was stopped by DEA on a train; currency seized after a dog alert, though no drugs were found on him.
- Valdes and Tracey Brown filed in rem forfeiture claims; government served Rule G(6) special interrogatories; claimants provided limited responses and sought to contest standing.
- District court granted summary judgment for the government, relying on an adverse inference about standing and credibility, after striking or not striking claims.
- Separation of standing (threshold) from merits is central; the court reverses and remands to re-evaluate standing apart from merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ownership plus possession establish standing at summary judgment? | Valdes asserts ownership and possession suffice for Article III standing at summary judgment. | Government contends Rule G requires 'legitimate' ownership beyond Article III standing. | Ownership plus possession sufficient for standing; not required to prove 'legitimate' ownership. |
| Does Rule G impose a 'legitimate' ownership requirement beyond Article III standing? | Valdes and Brown should not be required to prove legitimacy of ownership to have standing. | Rule G(5) and related provisions require procedural criteria and 'legitimate' ownership evidence. | Rule G does not require 'legitimate' ownership; procedural standing suffices beyond Article III. |
| May the district court have conflated standing with merits in deciding summary judgment? | Court should separate standing from merits; improper to resolve merits at standing stage. | Govt argued that Rule G dictates standing proof beyond Article III. | The court erred in melding standing with merits; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. $196,969 U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (standing requires more than Article III pleading; Rule G adds procedural requirements)
- United States v. Funds in the Amount of $574,840, 719 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule G(5) requires more than Article III; clarifies 'statutory standing' not to be conflated with merits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes the three elements of Article III standing)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) (limits on creating standing and cautions against policy-based expansions)
- United States v. $148,840 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (standing can be established by assertion of ownership and possession)