USA V. CHRISTOPHER KIM, No. 12-56922 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 13, 2015.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AKA Seal A, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees, LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG, Intervenor-Appellee, and 475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, AKA Seal A, Defendant. No. 12-56922 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02788ABC-PLA 2 UNITED STATES V. KIM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees, LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC HONIG, Intervenors-Appellees, and 475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, AKA Seal A, Defendant. No. 13-55555 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02788ABC-PLA UNITED STATES V. KIM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees, 3 No. 13-55556 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02788ABC-PLA ORDER LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC HONIG, Intervenors-Appellees, and 475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, Defendant. Filed November 30, 2015 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith, and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges. 4 UNITED STATES V. KIM ORDER The Opinion filed August 13, 2015, is amended as follows: Slip opinion page 19: after <we see no reason to place statutory attorney’s fees awards beyond the reach of the Act.> add the following as a footnote: <Jurisdiction over claims against the United States is generally given to the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491(a). Nevertheless, although we concluded that CAFRA fee awards are claims against the United States, jurisdiction over them is expressly given to the district courts. See 18 U.S.C. § 983; § 28 U.S.C. 2465.> With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the motion of Americans for Forfeiture Reform for sua sponte rehearing en banc and for court appointment as amicus curiae. The motion is DENIED as moot. On October 2, 2015, the parties to this case filed a Notice of Settlement. In the Notice, the parties requested that this court’s mandate be issued. We GRANT the parties’ request; therefore, no further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed in response to the amended petition. A certified copy of this order shall constitute the mandate of this court.
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.
