United States of America v. $209,815 in United States Currency

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 89 motion to certify interlocutory appeal. Figueroa shall serve supplemental answers to interrogatories as ordered previously 87 by Friday, February 13. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

$209,815 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

JULIO FIGUEROA,

17

Claimant.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C 14-0780 SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION
This is a fully-briefed motion1 to certify one of the Court's

21
22

orders, ECF No. 87 ("Order"), for interlocutory appeal under 28

23

U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

24

claimant seeking to recover cash seized during an encounter with

25

the DEA at San Francisco International Airport, seeks leave to file

26

an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order compelling

27

supplemental answers to special interrogatories served by the

28

1

Specifically, Figueroa, a civil forfeiture

ECF Nos. 89 ("Mot."); 92 ("Opp'n"); 93 ("Reply").

1

Government because "there are substantial grounds for difference of

2

opinion as to whether a civil forfeiture claimant must provide

3

responses to further special interrogatories about a defendant

4

property that was seized from him when the claimant has already

5

established standing . . . ."

6

appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local

7

Rule 7-1(b) and, for the reasons set forth below, the motion is

8

DENIED.

Mot. at 1-2.

The motion is

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

II.

BACKGROUND
This is a civil forfeiture case relating to $209,815 in United

11
12

States currency ("the Currency") seized from Figueroa's luggage

13

during a lawful and consensual encounter with DEA agents at San

14

Francisco International Airport.

15

Order") at 2-7 (exhaustively summarizing the factual and procedural

16

history of this case).

See See ECF No. 87 ("Prior

After Figueroa filed his verified claim, pursuant to

17
18

Supplemental Rule G(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or

19

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions ("Supplemental

20

Rules"), the Government served special interrogatories on Figueroa.

21

After Figueroa provided allegedly insufficient responses, the

22

Government filed a motion to compel, which Figueroa opposed,

23

arguing that because his answers were sufficient to establish his

24

standing to contest the forfeiture no further responses were

25

necessary.

26

the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. $133,420, 672 F.3d

27

629 (9th Cir. 2012), which rejected a substantially similar

28

///

The Court agreed with the Government and, relying on

2

1

argument, granted the motion to compel.

2

Compel Order") at 4-5.

3

ECF No. 48 ("Mot. to

After Figueroa supplemented his answers, the Government filed

4

several motions arguing, among either things, that Figueroa lacks

5

standing to contest the forfeiture and, because Figueroa's

6

responses to special interrogatories were insufficient, the Court

7

should strike his claim (a remedy authorized by Supplemental Rule

8

G(8)(c)(i)(A)).

9

arguing that because his answers to special interrogatories

Once again, Figueroa opposed these motions,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

establish his standing to contest the forfeiture, he need not

11

respond beyond that point.

12

that he has standing, the Court once again rejected Figueroa's view

13

of the relationship between standing and special interrogatories.

14

Prior Order at 17-18, 25-26.

15

Figueroa a final opportunity to supplement his answers to the

16

Government's special interrogatories by December 22, 2014.

17

While the Court agreed with Figueroa

As a result, the Court granted

Figueroa declined to supplement his answers, instead asking

18

the Court to certify its prior order for interlocutory appeal under

19

28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and stay the action pending the Ninth

20

Circuit's resolution of relationship between standing and special

21

interrogatories.

The Government opposes this request.

22
23

III. DISCUSSION

24

Section 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an

25

otherwise non-appealable order for interlocutory review when the

26

court concludes "there is substantial ground for difference of

27

opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially

28

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . ."

3

1

"[T]his section [is] to be used only in exceptional situation in

2

which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and

3

expensive litigation."

4

1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982).

5

requirements of "substantial ground for difference of opinion" and

6

potential for "materially advancing the ultimate termination of the

7

litigation" are not satisfied here, the Court will not certify its

8

prior order for interlocutory review.

9

In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d
Because the Court finds the

The Court finds that Figueroa cannot satisfy the first prong

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

of Section 1292(b) because his argument is foreclosed by binding

11

precedent.

12

01357-JVS (RNBx), 2008 WL 5666635, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2008)

13

("[T]he fact that there is non-binding precedent in jurisdictions

14

other than the Ninth Circuit is insufficient to show a 'substantial

15

ground' for difference of opinion in light of the apposite and

16

controlling precedent" in the Ninth Circuit); see also APCC Servs.

17

v. ESH AT&T Corp., 297 F. Supp. 2d 101, 107 (D.D.C. 2003) ("A

18

substantial ground for difference of opinion is often established

19

by a dearth of precedent within the controlling jurisdiction and

20

conflicting decisions in other circuits.").

21

See In re First Am. Corp. ERISA Litig., No. SACV 07-

As the Court has repeatedly found, Figueroa's argument is

22

essentially the same as the argument the Ninth Circuit rejected in

23

United States v. $133,420, 672 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2012).

24

$133,420, the claimant argued that "because a claimant can

25

establish standing merely by asserting an interest in the property,

26

and because the advisory committee's note to Supplemental Rule G(6)

27

limits the interrogatories to questions 'bearing on a claimant's

28

standing' it follows that Rule G(6) allows only questions regarding

4

In

1

the identity of the claimant and the type of legal interest

2

asserted."

3

finding that the text and advisory committee notes for Supplemental

4

Rule G(6) contemplated interrogatories bearing on more than simply

5

the claimant's identity and type of property interest claimed.

6

at 642-43.

7

probing, among other things, "the date(s), time, place and manner

8

in which the defendant currency[] was obtained, including the

9

names, address and telephone numbers of the person(s) from whom the

Id. at 642.

The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument,

Id.

In so doing, the court found that interrogatories

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

currency was obtained," and "the circumstances of each transaction

11

by which you acquired or obtained any interest in the defendant

12

currency," were "well within the scope of [Rule G(6)]."

13

636, 643 n.5; see also Mot. to Compel Order at 5-6.

Id. at

Nonetheless, as Figueroa points out, this case is unlike

14
15

$133,420 because the Court has already found that Figueroa has

16

standing to contest the forfeiture.

17

Figueroa's view, this distinction is significant in light of a

18

recent Eighth Circuit case, United States v. $154,853, 744 F.3d 559

19

(8th Cir. 2014), which found that if a claimant has standing to

20

contest the forfeiture, "then special interrogatories [are]

21

unnecessary to determine [the claimant's] standing as to that

22

currency.

23

striking [the claimant's verified claim] . . . for failure to

24

adequately respond to the special interrogatories when no special

25

interrogatories were necessary to determine standing."

26

564.

27
28

See Prior Order at 17.

In

Thus the district court abused its discretion in

744 F.3d at

But the Court does not believe the Ninth Circuit's logic in
$133,420 can be reconciled with the Eighth Circuit's conclusion in

5

obligation to respond to special interrogatories ends as soon as

3

the claimant has responded sufficiently to demonstrate standing

4

would make responses to special interrogatories the Ninth Circuit

5

has specifically endorsed as "well within the scope of [Rule G(6)]"

6

optional.

7

Court were to adopt Figueroa and the Eighth Circuit's view,

8

consistent with $133,420, the Government could serve special

9

interrogatories "seek[ing] information beyond the claimant's

10

United States District Court

$154,853.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

identity and type of property interest" claimed, however the

11

claimant would be under no obligation to answer those

12

interrogatories so long as the answers he did provide were

13

sufficient to confer standing at that stage of proceedings.

14

As a result, even if the posture is different than $133,420 the

15

theory is the same: because Figueroa has standing he need not

16

answer special interrogatories.

17

that theory, and the existence of non-binding authority elsewhere

18

to the contrary does not create a substantial ground for difference

19

of opinion.

20

a result, Figueroa cannot satisfy the first prong of Section

21

1292(b).

22

Concluding, as the Eighth Circuit did, that the

$133,420, 672 F.3d at 642-43.

In other words, if the

Id.

The Ninth Circuit has rejected

See In re First Am. Corp., 2008 WL 5666635, at *2.

As

Furthermore, even if Figueroa could demonstrate substantial

23

grounds for difference of opinion, resolving this issue would not

24

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

25

Even if the Ninth Circuit were to grant interlocutory review and

26

determine that Figueroa is correct, and that he need not respond to

27

the Government's special interrogatories, there is no question that

28

the Government would be entitled to the same information in the

6

1

ordinary course of discovery.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)

2

(describing the scope of discovery).

3

will be permitted as soon as the parties complete their Rule 26(f)

4

scheduling conference, currently set to take place on Friday,

5

February 20, 2015, the resolution of this issue is unlikely to

6

materially advance proceedings.

Given that ordinary discovery

7
8
9

IV.

CONCLUSION
Because Figueroa cannot show either substantial grounds for a

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

difference of opinion or that granting interlocutory appeal will

11

materially advance the litigation, his motion to certify the

12

Court's prior order for interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

13

the Court ORDERS Figueroa to serve the supplemental responses to

14

special interrogatories ordered previously, Prior Order at 26-27,

15

by Friday, February 13, 2015.

Instead,

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED

18
19
20

Dated: February 9, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7