United States v. Pickle, No. 12-16590 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseByron Pickle appealed the district court's default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture of real property. The judgment was entered after the district court granted the government's motion to strike Pickle's claim and answer based on Pickle's failure to respond to special interrogatories the government propounded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure's Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (Rule) G(6)(c)(i)(A), and denied Pickle's motion to stay. The court concluded that the district court incorrectly viewed Pickle's failure to answer the Rule G(6) special interrogatories as a per se basis for striking his claim. Because the district court’s decision to strike Pickle’s claim was based on the legally erroneous belief that Pickle’s failure to comply with Rule G(6) vitiated his statutory standing to contest the forfeiture and required dismissal of his claim forthwith, and because Pickle’s failure to answer the G(6) interrogatories would not have warranted striking his claim as a discovery sanction without giving him an opportunity to cure his lack of response, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Civil Forfeiture. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment of default and final judgment of forfeiture of real property, and held that the district court erroneously viewed claimant’s failure to respond to special interrogatories the government propounded pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(6)(c)(i)(A) as a per se basis for striking his claim. The panel held that the claimant’s failure to answer the government’s Rule G(6) interrogatories would not have warranted striking his claim as a discovery sanction without giving the claimant an opportunity to cure his lack of response. The panel also held that claimant’s failure to UNITED STATES V. PICKLE 3 comply with Rule G(6) did not vitiate his statutory standing to contest the forfeiture and dismissal of his claim forthwith. The panel remanded for further proceedings. Judge Rawlinson dissented because she believed the majority’s interpretation of the rules applicable to forfeiture actions conflicted with the court’s precedent and the decisions of most other courts that considered the issue, and she would hold that the district court acted within its discretion in striking claimant’s claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.