USA V. MICHAEL SIMARD, No. 11-15528 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Standing / Civil Forfeiture. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment striking a claim to $999,830 in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The panel held that the district court erred in striking the claim by applying the standard of proof for a claimant asserting a possessory, rather than an ownership, interest in property. The panel held that claimant’s unequivocal assertion of ownership established Article III standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 27, 2012.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 11-15528 MICHAEL SIMARD , Claimant-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00086KJD-GWF v. OPINION $999,830.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY , Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 9, 2012 Pasadena, California Filed December 10, 2012 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Barry G. Silverman, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 2 UNITED STATES V . SIMARD SUMMARY* Standing / Civil Forfeiture The panel reversed the district court s judgment striking a claim to $999,830 in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The panel held that the district court erred in striking the claim by applying the standard of proof for a claimant asserting a possessory, rather than an ownership, interest in property. The panel held that claimant s unequivocal assertion of ownership established Article III standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings. COUNSEL Ronald N. Richards, Law Offices Ronald Richards and Associates, A.P.C., of Beverly Hills, California, for ClaimantAppellant. Michael A. Humphreys, United States Attorney s Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellee. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V . SIMARD 3 OPINION PER CURIAM: Michael Simard appeals the district court s order striking his claim to $999,830 in this civil forfeiture proceeding and the district court s denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order. The district court concluded that Simard lacked Article III standing, struck his claim and entered judgment in favor of the government. The district court also denied his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, and we reverse. The district court erred in granting the motion to strike by applying the standard of proof for a claimant asserting a possessory, rather than an ownership, interest in property. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, [a]t the motion to dismiss stage, a claimant s unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is sufficient by itself to establish standing. United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2012). A claimant asserting a mere possessory interest must do more, and explain their possession of the property. Id. Simard introduced a sworn declaration in support of his claim asserting a legal right and ownership interest in the monies seized from me. This unequivocal assertion of ownership establishes Article III standing at this stage of proceedings. The disclaimer form and statements allegedly made by Simard during the traffic stop, and relied upon by the district court, may be relevant evidence at such time as a motion for summary judgment is filed. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 638 39. However, that evidence is not properly weighed against Simard s unequivocal assertion of ownership for 4 UNITED STATES V . SIMARD determining the existence of Article III standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings. Because we hold that the district court erred in striking his claim, Simard s appeal of his motion for reconsideration of that determination is moot. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
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.
