Unpublished Disposition, 846 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1987)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.ONE SENTRY 20 LSI/VLSI INTEGRATED CIRCUIT TEST SYSTEMTOGETHER WITH RELATED COMPONENTS, Defendants,andCaesar Electonics Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.
No. 87-2334.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 1988.* Decided April 28, 1988.
Before CHOY, SNEED and HUG, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
FACTS
The United States Government brought a civil forfeiture action against a highly sophisticated semiconductor chip test system pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 401(a). Caesar Electronics, Inc. ("Caesar"), claiming an interest in the system, brought a motion to intervene and defend against forfeiture. The district court granted Caesar leave to intervene without prejudice to the Government's motion on standing to sue. On April 22, 1987, the district court held a hearing on the Government's alternative motion to dismiss or strike or for summary judgment. On June 12, 1987, the court dismissed intervenor Caesar's claim for lack of standing. Caesar appeals from that dismissal. We dismiss for lack of a final appealable order.
ANALYSIS
This court has jurisdiction of appeals from "final decisions" of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order is final if it " 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.' " Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), a judgment on fewer than all of the claims or parties does not terminate the action as to any of the parties unless the court expressly determines that there is no reason to delay appeal and expressly directs the entry of a final judgment. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1985); Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 608 (9th Cir. 1980). If an order does not "dispose of the rights and liabilities of all the parties to the litigation" and appeal is not certified under Rule 54(b), the order is not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Gaines v. Sunray Oil Co., 539 F.2d 1136, 1140 (8th Cir. 1976); see Lockwood, 629 F.2d at 608.
The district court's order dismissing Caesar's claim is not an appealable final order. The district court has not adjudicated the Government's forfeiture action. Further, the court preserved Caesar's rights on appeal by initially granting it the right to intervene.1 See Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 107 S. Ct. 1177, 1182 (1987) (an intervenor can appeal an adverse final judgment by a trial court). Thus, the appeal is premature.
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 3(f)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 21
Caesar mistakenly treats the court's initial grant of leave to intervene and subsequent dismissal interchangeably or as a single action. There is nothing improper about granting the motion to intervene and then subsequently dismissing for lack of standing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, which governs intervention, is construed liberally "in favor of applicants for intervention." Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983). The district court must accept as true factual allegations in the motion. Lake Investors Development Group, Inc. v. Egidi Development Group, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983); 7C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 1914 (1986)
However, an individual may not contest forfeiture without first establishing a legitimate claim of an ownership or possessory interest in the seized property. United States v. $364,960.00 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 326 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, 558 F.2d 1359, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977). The district court properly looked beyond the face of the motion to intervene to determine the standing issue. See $364,960.00 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d at 326 (remand for a full evidentiary hearing to assess claimant's standing).
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.
