United States of America v. $41,471.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 47

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Judge Manuel L. Real. The Court hereby grants the government's motion for summary judgment. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
FRANK D. KORTUM
Assistant United States Attorney
California State Bar No. 110984
1400 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
WESTERN DIVISION
14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. CV 15-00696-R(SSx)

15
Plaintiff,
16

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

v.
17
$41,471.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
18
Defendant.
19
20

TYRONE HAWKINS,

21

Claimant.

22
23
24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

DATE: October 19, 2015
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
COURTROOM: 8

1

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

2

Rule 56-1 of the Local Rules of the Central District of California,

3

the Court issues its Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and

4

Conclusions of Law.

5

I.

6

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

7

1.

The defendant currency was seized from Nina Haywood

8

(“Haywood”) on June 27, 2014, Haywood filed a timely claim and an

9

answer on March 26, 2015.

10

2.

Dkts. 13 & 14.

On June 8, 2015, Haywood withdrew her claim after the

11

government filed a motion to strike based on her failure to answer

12

Special Interrogatories that had been served by the government on

13

March 12, 2015.

14

3.

Dkt. 20.

On June 11, 2015, Tyrone Hawkins filed an untimely claim

15

and answer.

16

had loaned the defendant currency to a relative so that the relative

17

could buy a truck.

18
19
20

4.

Dkts. 23 & 24.

Dkt. 24.

On June 18, 2015, the government served Hawkins with

Special Interrogatories.
5.

Hawkins’ verified claim asserted that he

Kortum Declaration ¶ 3 & Exh. “D”.

The government received Hawkins’ answers to the

21

government’s Special Interrogatories on July 13, 2015.

Special

22

Interrogatory No. 3 asked Hawkins for information about how he

23

acquired the defendant currency.

24

Interrogatory, Hawkins stated:

In response to this Special

25

the sum of $41,471.00 dollars was obtained over many years.

26

Mainly through 19 years of working.

27

Claimant does not have an exact paper trail for every

28

dollar, but he has old tax statements and check stubs from
2

(Bonuses, loans).

1

the past five years.

[Claimant has previously submitted

2

some this information, and will submit additional

3

information if requested.]

4

Kortum Declaration ¶ 4 & Exh. “E”.

5

advised on July 14, 2015 that Hawkins’ response was too

6

conclusory to be acceptable.

7
8

6.

Counsel for Hawkins was

Id. ¶ 5 & Exh. “F”.

On July 29, 2015, Hawkins provided an amended response

to Special Interrogatory No. 3, stating that:

9

The monies were acquired through the years by loans,

10

working and work bonuses.

11

and put it away.

My mortgage has been $550 dollars from

12

200 until 2014.

Further, my tenant pays the majority of

13

the bills since his family (two children) have lived there

14

since 2009.

15

2015; and, a 1986 Monte Carlo before that.

16

Mustang race care from 2004 through 2009 and then sold that

17

vehicle for $20,000 dollars.

18

for the sale of that vehicle.

19

mortgage from Wells Fargo to finance the building of that

20

vehicle.

21
22

I would take most of the money

I drove a 1992 Legend automobile from 2006 to
I drove a 1989

I could not find the receipt
Finally, I took out a second

Kortum Decl. ¶ 6 & Exh. “G”.
7.

To the extent that any findings of fact contained herein

23

can be considered to be or are deemed to be conclusions of law, they

24

are incorporated by reference into the Conclusions of Law.

25

II.

26
27
28

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

This is a civil forfeiture action brought pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
3

1
2
3
4

2.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1345 and 1355.
3.

Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1395(b).

5

The Standard Governing Summary Judgment

6

4.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for

7

Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no

8

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to

9

judgment as a matter of law.

Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477

10

U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

11

party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of

12

the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving

13

party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry

14

its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.

15

Insurance v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).

16

the moving party meets its initial burden of showing there is no

17

genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party has the burden of

18

producing competent evidence and cannot rely on mere allegations or

19

denials in the pleadings.

20

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

21

as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the

22

nonmoving party there is no genuine issue for trial.

23

5.

To meet its burden of production, the moving

Nissan Fire and Marine
Once

Matsushita Electric Industries Co. v.
Where the record taken

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Title 18

24

United States Code Section 983, governs all in rem civil forfeiture

25

proceedings commenced on or after August 23, 2000.

26

proceedings are also governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty

27

or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

28

983(a)(4)(A).
4

Those forfeiture

18 U.S.C. §

1

6.

Supplemental Rule G permits any person claiming an interest

2

in the property to contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the

3

court where the action is pending.

4

7.

Unlike in typical civil proceedings, the Government may

5

commence limited discovery immediately after a verified claim is

6

filed.

7

serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant’s identity and

8

relationship to the defendant property without the court’s leave at

9

any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed.

Supplemental Rule G(6)(A) provides that the Government may

10

The purpose of the rule is to permit the Government to file limited

11

interrogatories at any time after the claim is filed to gather

12

information that bears on the claimant’s standing.

13

Advisory Committee Notes, Subdivision (6).

14

8.

Rule G, 2006

At any time before trial the Government may move to strike

15

the claimant’s claim on the grounds that the claim does not comply

16

with Supplemental Rule G(5), that the claimant has not responded to

17

special interrogatories pursuant to Rule G(6)(A), or that the

18

claimant lacks standing.

19

motion to strike may be presented as a motion for summary judgment.

20

Supplemental Rule G(8)(2)(B);

21

Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir. 2012).

22

9.

Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) & (B).

The

United States v. $133,420 in U.S.

The government argues that the claimant’s insufficient

23

response to its interrogatories fail to establish Article III

24

standing, and accordingly asks this Court to strike claimant’s claim

25

and grant summary judgment.

26

10.

A claimant bears the burden of establishing Article III

27

standing, the threshold function of which is to ensure that the

28

Government is put to its proof only where someone acting with a
5

1

legitimate interest contests the forfeiture.

2

$557,933.89, more or less, in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 79 (2d Cir.

3

2002).

4

sufficient interest in the property to create a case or controversy.

5

United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d

6

1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008).

7

United States v.

A claimant must therefore demonstrate that he has a

11.

Because standing requirements are not mere pleading

8

requirements but rather an indispensable part of a case, standing

9

must be supported with the manner and degree of evidence required at

10

the successive stages of the litigation.

11

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

12

allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage, they are no longer

13

sufficient at the summary judgment and trial stages, where some

14

evidence of standing is required.

15

Circuit concluded that in a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s

16

bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest in the absence

17

of some other evidence is not enough to survive a motion for summary

18

judgment at the summary judgment stage.

19

District Court must ask itself whether a fair minded jury would find

20

that the claimant had standing on the evidence presented.

21

12.

Lujan v. Defenders of

Therefore, while general

In $133,420, supra, the Ninth

672 F.3d at 638.

The

Id.

A conclusory self-serving affidavit lacking detailed facts

22

and any supporting evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue

23

of material fact.

24

F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997).

25

13.

F.T.C. v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., 104

In response to the Government’s special interrogatory No.

26

3, which asked how claimant acquired the defendant currency, claimant

27

stated that the sum of $41,471.00 was obtained over many years,

28

“mainly through 19 years of working, bonuses and loans.
6

Claimant

1

does not have an exact paper trail of every dollar but he has old tax

2

statements and check stubs for the past five years.”

3

4 & Exh. “E”.

4

14.

Kortum Decl. ¶

When the Government informed claimant that his response was

5

too conclusory to be acceptable, claimant amended his response to

6

special interrogatory No. 3, adding in part: “I drove a 1989 Mustang

7

race car from 2004 through 2009, and then sold that vehicle for

8

$20,000.

9

Id. ¶ 6 & Exh. “G”.

10

15.

I could not find the receipt for the sale of that vehicle.”

Claimant’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to

11

establish his standing.

Claimant has not provided this Court or the

12

Government with any supporting evidence other than his own self-

13

serving statements made by the same lawyer who represented a previous

14

claimant in this case.

15

civil forfeiture proceeding claimant need only show some evidence

16

that he owned the defendant property, he has failed to do so.

Although at the summary judgment stage of a

17

III.

18

CONCLUSION

19
20
21
22

16.

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby grants the

government’s motion for summary judgment.
19.

To the extent that any conclusions of law contained herein

can be considered to be or are deemed to be Statements of

23
24
25
26
27
28
7

1

Uncontroverted Fact, they are incorporated by reference into the

2

Statements of Uncontroverted Fact.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
Dated:January 6, 2016
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Respectfully submitted:
EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section

13
14
15
16
17

/s/
FRANK D. KORTUM
Assistant United States Attorney
Asset Forfeiture Section
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8