United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14129

On May 12, 2010, DEA and NYPD agents stopped Alberto Vazquez-Alvarez, searched his vehicle, and seized roughly $750,000 in cash found in two duffel bags; Vazquez-Alvarez claimed the money was lottery winnings.
Vazquez-Alvarez filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property; the government then filed an in rem civil forfeiture complaint seeking the Cash as drug proceeds.
Vazquez-Alvarez filed a claim of interest and failed to respond to the government’s special interrogatories under the Forfeiture Rules.
The government moved to strike his claim for failure to respond; Vazquez-Alvarez moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing (1) the government missed the 60-day statutory filing window in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (2) it failed to execute an in rem arrest warrant against the Cash.
The district court compelled responses, later struck Vazquez-Alvarez’s claim for discovery noncompliance, and entered a default judgment forfeiting the Cash; Vazquez-Alvarez appealed.
On appeal Vazquez-Alvarez did not contest the district court’s holding that he failed to establish standing; he argued the court should have considered his jurisdictional motion before striking his claim and entering default judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had to resolve Vazquez‑Alvarez’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction before addressing standing and discovery noncompliance	Vazquez‑Alvarez: court lacked jurisdiction because government missed the §983 60‑day filing deadline and did not execute an in rem warrant against the Cash	Government: Forfeiture Rules require a claimant to establish standing first; the statutory deadline is a claims‑processing rule and arrest‑warrant execution is excused when government already has custody	Court: Forfeiture Rules permit requiring standing and compliance with interrogatories before considering a motion to dismiss; the §983 deadline is procedural, not jurisdictional, and Rule G excuses warrant execution when property is in government custody.

Phillips v. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc., 240 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard of review for legal conclusions)
United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 1999) (claimant must have statutory and Article III standing to contest forfeiture)
Torres v. $36,256.80 U.S. Currency, 25 F.3d 1154 (2d Cir. 1994) (standing requirement in in rem forfeiture)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claims‑processing rules)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (clarifying jurisdictional labeling and claims‑processing rules)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (definition of jurisdiction)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (failure to state a cause of action is a merits issue, not a lack of jurisdiction)