*1 percentage Bank resi- of East by numerous substantial and are connected boundaries currently leave the East Bank for that 27 dents who Zaretsky reported roadways. Dr. hospital powerful evidence of services hospitals Orleans percent of admissions to reasonably available to con- Fur- the alternatives Bank residents. Parish were of East hospitals In a market that includes thermore, East Bank resi- sumers. percent of over 30 Parish, no East Jefferson has outside of the Orleans hospital care dents obtained dominate, much to at- opportunity to less one of Dr. Zaret- particular, Bank. In East monopolize. tempt conspire to hospital with the sky’s tables shows of East Bank residents’ largest share third claims IV. Other antitrust Baptist Hospital, a is Southern admissions table, Bank. On that hospital not in the East hope pursue state antitrust DHJ’s larger market share than Baptist a has injunctive Clayton Act claim for claims and DHJ’s, Zaretsky Baptist yet excluded Dr. summary relief rest on a reversal pro- market. Even more from the relevant That judgment on the other federal claims. assertedly porousness bative of hope by previous discussion. is dashed markets, percent of separate geographic patients live and East Jefferson’s both DHJ’s Conclusion V. Bank.
outside of the East reasons, foregoing we AFFIRM that East Jefferson’s own DHJ counters of the district court the decision the East Bank as refer to internal documents appellees SMA area,” “primary and SMA docu- service on DHJ’s federal and state East Jefferson Bank as a the East ments also describe antitrust claims. DHJ further relies geographic distinct area. AFFIRMED. Zaretsky, opinion Dr. which consid- on the of routes, major transportation travel ered At a and habit. and area custom minimum, preclude urges, fact issues DHJ
summary judgment on this issue. persuaded that the evidence areWe America, UNITED STATES expert report establishes as a own DHJ’s Plaintiff-Appellee, that the relevant market can matter of law narrowly suggests. as DHJ not be drawn as Enters., v. National Med. See Seidenstein AT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED (5th Cir.1985) (stat Inc., 1100, 1106 WEST, EL GATEWAY BOULEVARD market, although usually that relevant TEXAS, Appur PASO COUNTY with all jury, be determined question fact for the Thereon, Improvements tunances law). facts that over 30 as a matter of Defendant, sought hospi percent Bank residents of East Claimants, City al., et Bank and that tal outside the East services percent patients at DHJ and East Eduardo and Laura the East Bank con Jefferson reside outside Gonzalez, Patricia Claimants- geo the relevant designation of DHJ’s demn Appellants. Particularly telling graphic is that market. largest market hospital with the third Bank residents’ admissions is share of East States Court of relevant market.21 included DHJ’s present evidence Not has DHJ failed to 1997. purchasers that health care and ultimate con reasonably hospitals turn to sumers could not Bank, Hospi East see Freeman outside the fact,
tal, 268-270, but F.3d Elmwood, hospital Baptist, in the rele- two other included In addition to Southern larger hospitals Zaretsky. Bank have a outside the East Dr. vant market percentage of East Bank residents of the business
313
PER CURIAM:
“fugitive
The
relied on
district court
the
disentitlement” doctrine to strike Eduardo
Quirarte’s
and Laura Patricia Gon
(“the claimants”)
zalez’s
claim and answer
regarding
respondent
the forfeiture
the
property.
Court has since
“fugitive
that
held
the
disentitlement” doc
does
trine
not
district court to enter
govern
in favor of the
in a
civil forfeiture case based on a
claimant’s
status.
See
— U.S. -,
1777,
United
(1996). Thus,
Had district court dead- fused extend claimants’ JONES, lines, perhaps the court’s EMILIO M. GARZA and we could construe Before PARKER, the merits of the motion Judges. consideration of (D.Nev. implicit, discretionary grant Village, F.Supp.
strike as an Incline 1990). Supplemental an extension. See Rules for The Ninth Circuit affirmed. United Claims, Admiralty Certain Maritime and 28 States v. Real Located at Incline (9th C(6) (“The Cir.1995). Village, 47 Supplemental Rule claim- F.3d 1511 U.S.C. subject property ant is the of an Court reversed the Ninth *3 days action in rem shall file a claim within 10 Circuit, holding fugitive disentitle executed, process after has been or within ment doctrine did not the district such additional time as be allowed court to enter in favor of added). (emphasis the court To the government in a civil forfeiture case contrary, the district court denied based on the claimant’s status. The extension, indicating the claimants an thus Court found that the district court had alter the court’s intention that the claimants ad- protecting native means of here to the time limits contained in Rule interests and that therefore “the harsh sanc C(6). Accordingly, we will not construe the justi tion of absolute disentitlement” was not district court’s consideration of the merits of — Degen, fied. U.S. at S.Ct. discretionary the motion to strike as a exten- 1782. The Court concluded that “[a] sion of the deadlines. Rather than striking Degen’s made-rule claims and enter reaching motion, the merits of the the dis- ing summary judgment against him as a trict court could have struck the claim and failing appear sanction to [for answer as ... proceedings] arbitrary would be an re sponse supposed to the conduct it is to re We AFFIRM on that discourage.” dress or Id. 116 S.Ct. GARZA, Judge, EMILIO at 1783. specially concurring: Regardless of the merit of the Court’s joined Parker,
I separately, by Judge write avoiding arbitrary concern for “an response,” to practical Court to reconsider effect of the Court’s decision is opinion Degen v. United encourage immigration to country to a “safe” U.S. -, by creating legal L.Ed.2d 102 safe harbor for criminal (1996), Degen’s application defendants, and consider option particularly an attractive the southwestern border of the United to operate those defendants who reside and States. enterprises their criminal in the southwest- recreation, ern economy, states. The history Clearly, the Court did not consider the people and in Texas cities such as Browns- practical Degen’s application effects of pecu ville, Laredo, Pass, Eagle Del Rio and El liar to the Degen, southwestern border. virtually Paso integrated are with their sister grand jury federal Degen indicted for distri Matamoros, Laredo, cities of Nuevo Piedras marijuana, money bution of laundering and Negras, respec- Cuidad Acuna and Juarez crimes, other sought and the tively; presumably border cities in New California, properties forfeiture of Nevada Mexico, Arizona and California exhibit simi- allegedly purchased Hawaii pro with integration lar with their Mexican counter- Degen’s drug ceeds of sales or used to facili parts. Mexican and American citizens alike Despite tate the moving sales. to Switzer regularly cross the border to conduct busi- land, a treaty nation whose extradition ness, necessities, purchase enjoy enter- oblige Degen it return tainment, and to visit relatives on “the other States, Degen an filed answer in the civil Indeed, side.” residents border com- action to contest forfeiture. The district munities, crossing the bridge international granted motion to strike visiting town, akin part another Degen’s summary judg answer and entered another nation. The international border is him, holding legal a barrier in the sense that differ- not entitled to be heard the civil forfeiture govern ent laws each side of the line. action because he remained outside coun try, unamenable to many criminal United States district courts districts, States v. Real Located at located border the bor- eliminates, traffick- against him based on legal tuted compounds, rather der alleged money laundering activities ing and attendant Smuggling and its problems. by Degen, a in the indictment. Protected cattle and they involve crimes—whether can during criminal defendant such cotton in frontier horses from El Paso to Juarez make the short drive War, Revolu during the Mexican arms Civil immunity from thereby ensure both his narcotics tion, during whiskey Prohibition justice system and the century the American endemic in the late twentieth —are Surely the protection of American civillaws. of crime the southwest border. Control such a result. did not intend a constant border is along the southwestern enforcement struggle for the courts and law aside, there are two federal As an charged responsibili organizations with that preside over dockets with in El Paso who encourage defen ty. Degen would further *4 apiece. Degen 400 criminal cases more than this nation and to to flout the laws of dants exacerbate, dilem [this] not “resolve will liberty proper and their preserve both —Id., at -, 116 S.Ct. at U.S. ma[ ].” “moving to the ty by simply across town” also of the border. other side most trial exacerbates the difficulties Even assum managing their dockets.
have by the Court are measures listed dilemmas,” these “means to resolve effective
id. at al courts that are
they further overburden 1,000 criminal handling upwards of
ready addition, three annually. indictments FARUKI; Ahmed Ahsan Ahmad by which gives as means examples the Court Azeez; Agha, R. Zafar pre the dilemmas courts can address Plaintiffs-Appellants, simultaneously by defendants who sented civil prosecution and contest flee only increase the drain forfeitures S.I.P., INC., Defendant- PARSONS judicial resources. scarce Appellee. my concerns exemplifies case The instant Here, grand jury returned a
about Court of United States against Eduardo superseding indictment Gil-Terrazas, Quirarte, Avelino charging them with other individuals several 29, 1997. offenses. various narcotics Quirarte were the and Terrazas alleged that Terrazas organization, with
principals in the smuggling operations
running running
the United States trial, Terrazas in Mexico. After
operations conspiracy to distribute convicted of money
marijuana and of launder- and cocaine months him to 360 The court sentenced
ing. custody. trial, appear
Quirarte, did not Texas to from
fleeing with his wife Juarez, to avoid Mexico
Ciudad
Quirarte has never returned charges to answer
States has, civil contested the
him. He insti- proceeding the
forfeiture