United States of America v. $6,600.00 in United States currency, in rem, No. 3:2012cv01624 - Document 47 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 39 is DENIED. Consistent with the Court's Order 42 entered June 17, 2014, Plaintiff's responsive memorandum to Claimant's Motion for Reconsideration 40 is due no later than October 23, 2014, and Claimant's reply memorandum is due November 6, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 10/02/2014 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (pvh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. &#036;6,600.00 in United States currency, in rem Doc. 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:12-cv-01624-MA Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. $6,600 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, in rem, Defendant. S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney District of Oregon ANNEMARIE SGARLATA Assistant United States Attorney 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN L. MICHAELS 259 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 300-D Eugene, Oregon 97401 Attorney for Claimant Sean Beeman MARSH, Judge This civil forfeiture proceeding comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Jl39) on the grounds that 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Claimant Sean Beeman lacks standing to contest forfeiture of the Defendant Currency. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The material facts are undisputed and taken from the parties' submissions on summary judgment. Postal Inspection Service Inspector Scott Helton intercepted a parcel addressed to Claimant. parcel was heavily taped, On March 13, 2012, United States Inspector Helton noticed that the sent via express mail, and the return address label bore a name not apparently associated with the return address. A narcotics-detection canine deployed by Inspector Helton alerted to the odor of narcotics on the parcel. The next day, Inspector Helton and other officers traveled to the address listed on the parcel and spoke with Claimant. request, which Upon Claimant permitted the officers to open the parcel in the officers subsequently found the Defendant Currency. Claimant told the officers that the currency in the parcel was the repayment of a loan from a friend. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed this civil forfeiture proceeding alleging the Defendant Currency represented proceeds traceable to an illegal narcotics transaction. 2012, On Octobe.r 22, Claimant filed a Claim to the Defendant Currency alleging that he had an ownership interest in the currency and attaching sworn statements from Tyson Shatswell and Derek Jester stating that 2 - OPINION AND ORDER they sent the currency in repayment of a loan and the currency was not involved in any illegal activity. In his deposition Claimant again asserted that the Defendant Currency was sent to him as repayment of a loan. Claimant asserted his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when asked whether he had a written loan agreement with Mr. Shatswell and Mr. Jester, whether he had an oral loan agreement with Mr. Shatswell and Mr. Jester, whether he had a security interest in the Defendant Currency, and whether· the parcel was within his custody or control while it was in transit. Claimant testified that he had never secured a judgment against Mr. Shatswell or Mr. Jester, or perfected a lien against the Defendant Currency. Claimant testified he was not aware that a package containing the Defendant Currency was being sent to him before the parcel arrived. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.n Ins. Washington Mut. States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). P. 56(a). United See also Fed. R. Civ. The moving party must show the absence of a dispute as to a material fact. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005). for v. summary In response to a properly supported motion judgment,· the 3 - OPINION AND ORDER nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and show there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact for trial. Id. "This burden is not a light one. The non- moving party must do more than show there is some 'metaphysical doubt' as to the material facts at issue.'' In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F. 3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable nonmoving party.'' jury could return a verdict for the Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 587 (9th Cir. 2010). Sluimer v. Verity, "Summary judgment cannot be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn from the evidence as to material issues." (9th Cir. Easter v. Am. W. Fin, 381 F.3d 948, 957 A "mere disagreement or bald 2004) (citation omitted). assertion" that a genuine dispute as to a material fact exists "will not preclude the grant of summary judgment." Deering v. Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 2:07-CV-1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2011) (citing Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 1989)). When the nonmoving party's claims are factually implausible, that party must "come forward with more persuasive Holdings evidence LLC v. than otherwise Brekka, 581 2009) (citation omitted) . 4 - OPINION AND ORDER would be F.3d 1127, necessary." 1137 (9th Cir. The substantive law governing a claim or a defense determines whether a fact is material. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prod., 2006). Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. If the resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of the claim, the court may grant summary judgment. Id. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for summary judgment arguing that Claimant lacks standing to contest the forfeiture of the Defendant Currency because he is an unsecured.creditor who lacks a viable possessory or ownership interest. A claimant seeking to contest a civil forfeiture establish both Article III and statutory standing. must United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 1989). Article I II standing is at issue in this case. In a civil forfeiture action, whether the claimant has Article III standing "turns upon whether the claimant has a sufficient interest in the property to create a case or controversy." United States v. Real Property Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 As (9th Cir. 2004). establish the plaintiff suffered an three such, a elements injury civil of in forfeiture standing, fact, that claimant namely, there is "must that a the causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and that it ·is likely the decision." injury will be redressed by a favorable United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). 5 - OPINION AND ORDER "Claimants in civil forfeiture actions can satisfy this test by showing that they have a 'colorable interest in the property,' which includes an ownership interest or a possessory interest." F.3d at 1191). Id. (quoting 5208 Los Fanciscos Way, 385 Ultimately, however, the claimant's burden to demonstrate Article III standing is "not a heavy one." 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d at 1191. "The elements of standing 'must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the [claimant] bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.'" $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d at 638 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). At summary judgment, the claimant must "'set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true,'" and from those facts the court must ask "whether 'a fairminded jury' could find that the claimant had standing on the evidence presented.'' Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). "A claimant asserting an ownership interest in the defendant property" must present "'some evidence of ownership' beyond the mere assertion in order to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 639 (quoting United States v. $81,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 189 F. 3d 28, 35 seized the from (1st Cir. 1999)). claimant's 6 - OPINION AND ORDER "The fact that property was possession, for example, may be sufficient evidence, when coupled with a claim of ownership, establish standing at the summary judgment stage." Plaintiff argues that Claimant lacks to Id. standing because Claimant's status in relation to the Defendant Currency is best characterized as that of an unsecured creditor. Plaintiff maintains that Claimant's status as the addressee of the parcel does not ripen his interest as an unsecured creditor into a possessory or ownership interest sufficient to confer standing. Claimant, among other arguments, addressee of the parcel responds that his status as the containing the Defendant Currency is sufficient to establish standing to contest the forfeiture of the currency. Plaintiff specifically relies upon United States v. $960,000 in U.S. Currency, 307 !"ed. App'x 251 (11th Cir. 2006), for the proposition that the addressee of a parcel containing currency does not have a possessory or ownership interest sufficient to confer standing to contest forfeiture of the currency. U.S. Currency, In $960,000 in the claimant sought to contest the forfeiture of money seized from a package sent from Miami to a corporation in Colombia. 307 !"ed. App'x at 252. A representative of the corporation submitted a declaration attesting that the claimant was the intended recipient of the package and the corporation was to contact the claimant when the package arrived. Circuit found "[t]he fact that 7 - OPINION AND ORDER ï½ ï½´ï½¨ï½¾ï¼ Id. The Eleventh corporation] identified [the claimant] as the intended recipient of the carton is a far cry from proving that [the claimant] had an ownership or possessory interest in the carton containing the defendant currency." Id. at 256. The court specifically noted that the claimant "was never in actual possession of the currency," and at best inchoate possessory interest" as the property. Id. had "an expected or intended recipient of the Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the claimant had "not produced evidence sufficient to establish that he either owned or currency," possessed the and affirmed claimant lacked standing. the carton district containing court's the defendant finding that the Id. Similarly, in United States v. $11,900 in U.S. Currency, No. 09-2303-STA, 2009 WL 3571554 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2009), the Western District of Tennessee struck a claim for lack of standing because the claimant failed to demonstrate that he had an ownership or possessory interest in the defendant currency despite being listed as the addressee of the package from which the currency was seized. 2009 WL 3571554, at *5. was still in transit, the court, Because the defendant currency solely citing $960,000 in U.S. Currency, reasoned that the currency still belonged to the sender. $11,900 in U.S. Currency, 2009 WL 3571554, at *5. Finally, the Western District of Michigan came to a similar conclusion in United States v. $9,770 in U.S. Currency, No. 1:12cv-354, 2013 WL 1340153 8 - OPINION AND ORDER (W.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2013). There, the claimant argued he was the owner of the defendant currency seized from a parcel addressed to claimant because it represented an investment the sender was making in the claimant's business. at *l. Noting that the Id. claimant never had possession of the defendant currency, the court found that "[t)he mere fact that he was the intended recipient of a package still in transit, with his self-serving assertions, is insufficient to along show possessory or ownership interest to contest forfeiture." a Id. at *3. Although I acknowledge there is support in caselaw for Plaintiff's position that Claimant's status as addressee of the parcel does not ripen his interest in the Defendant Currency into an interest forfeiture, sufficient to confer standing to contest I do not find this caselaw to be persuasive. this At the outset I note the Ninth Circuit has treated an addressee's interest in an in-transit parcel more seriously than the merely "inchoate" or "expected" interest the Eleventh Circuit identified in $960,000 in U.S. Currency. See 307 Fed. App' x at 256. search and seizure context, for example, In the criminal the Ninth Circuit has found that the addressee of a parcel has standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search and seizure of the package because an addressee has a "possessory interest . . . in the timely delivery of a package." 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 - OPINION AND ORDER United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206, More to the point, however, the record on summary judgment contains sufficient evidence to establish at this stage of the proceedings that Claimant has a colorable ownership interest in the Defendant Currency. Not only was Claimant the addressee of the parcel from which the Defendant Currency was seized, but he also provided additional evidence concerning his ownership interest in the Defendant Currency through his explanation that it represented repayment of a loan and the corroborating statements of Mr. Jester and Mr. Shatswell. burden of This evidence is sufficient to carry Claimant's establishing standing on summary judgment. See $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d at 639. This evidence also materially distinguishes Claimant from a typical unsecured creditor. contest the forfeiture of Unsecured creditors lack standing to the debtor's property because their interest is in the debtor's estate generally, not in any particular asset in the debtor's estate. F.3d 344, 346 (9th Cir. See $20,193.39 U.S. 1994); United States v. Currency, 16 Currency Seized from Chase Bank Account No. XXXXXX3320, No. 3:13-cv-00562-MA, 2014 WL 3891748, at *4 unsecured creditor, (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2014). Unlike a typical Claimant's alleged interest in the currency found in the parcel addressed to him is very particularized; it is not the sort of generalized interest in a debtor's estate that precludes an unsecured creditor from having standing to contest the forfeiture of the debtor's property. 10 - OPINION AND ORDER In light of the relatively low threshold necessary .to establish standing at this stage of the proceedings, I conclude on this record that Claimant has carried his burden of demonstrating that he has a colorable ownership interest in the Defendant Currency. CONCLUSION For the foregoing rea:,wns, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (jf39) is DENIED. Consistent with the Court's Order (#42) entered Plaintiff's June 17, 2014, responsive Claimant's Motion for Reconsideration (1140) memorandum to is due no later than October 23, 2014, and Claimant's reply memorandum is due November 6, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this :J.. day of October, 2014. Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge 11 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
