Naylor v. United States of America
Filing
17
ORDER GRANTING the Bankruptcy Trustee's Unopposed Petition pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) and Ordering the Distribution of Funds. Compliance with this Order to be Certified by January 20, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12-27-2013.(cjb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
KAREN S. NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7
TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY
ESTATE OF SLE METALS, INC.
CASE NO. 13-cv-2481-BTM
ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR RETURN OF
SEIZED PROPERTY
16
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
17
v.
18
19
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
20
Defendant.
21
22
23
Pending before the Court is SLE Metals, Inc.’s Bankruptcy Trustee’s (“SLE
24
Trustee” or “Trustee”) motion for the return of funds seized by the United States
25
Secret Service (“Secret Service”) in 2010. For the reasons set forth herein, the
26
Court grants the motion.
27
//
28
//
1
1
//
2
I. BACKGROUND
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The facts described herein are undisputed. On June 24, 2009, SLE Metals,
Inc. (“the Debtor” or “SLE”) filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in the Central
District of California, and Karen Naylor was appointed the Chapter 7 Trustee.
Declaration of Karen Naylor (“Naylor Decl.”), Ex. 1 (SLE Notice of Bankruptcy).
Among the assets of the SLE estate were three federal tax refund checks dated
December 29, 2009 totaling $1,014,484.69 issued to SLE Metals, Inc. See id., Ex.
4. On or about March 1, 2010 two Wells Fargo Bank business accounts (a
commercial checking account and a savings account) were opened in San Diego in
the name of “SLE Metal In” (note the conspicuously absent “c”) by “Eunice Y.
Fdawi.” See Declaration of Carolyn G. Fuller (“Fuller Decl.”) Exs. A-C. On
March 2, 2009, the three checks were deposited into the SLE Metal In accounts.
On March 3, 2010, a check for $100,000 payable to “MDS USA Inc.” was
15
16
drawn on the “SLE Metal In” checking account. Fuller Decl. Ex. A. The
17
authorized signatories for the MDS Account were Euniceth Fdawi and Nidal
18
Fdawi. Naylor Decl. ¶10-11, Ex. 4; Fuller Decl. Ex. C. Wells Fargo froze the SLE
19
Metals In and MDS accounts, and worked with the Secret Service to investigate
20
these suspicious transactions. Id. ¶12. The funds in the accounts were later seized
21
by the government pursuant to a warrant issued by a Magistrate Judge. Id. ¶13.
22
It appears that no one has been indicted for any crime related to these
23
transactions. Yet the funds have remained in the government’s possession for over
24
three years. The government has no further interest in retaining the funds, and it
25
does not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 11.) Neither Wells Fargo, the Fdawis, nor
26
any other party has opposed the motion.
27
//
28
//
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
//
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the
deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be
filed in the district where the property was seized." Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). This
rule applies to property unlawfully seized as well as to property lawfully seized but
unreasonably retained by the government. United States v. Zambrano, 353 Fed.
Appx. 227, 228 (11th Cir. 2009). When a motion for the return of property under
Rule 41(g) is filed after a conviction, or where the government brings no forfeiture
action, it is treated as a civil action in equity. United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d
1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Because there were no criminal proceedings pending
at the time of filing, the district court properly treated the motion as a civil
complaint governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); United States v.
Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311-13 (11th Cir. 2009). To recover property, the movant
16
must demonstrate that she has a possessory interest in the seized property. If no
17
criminal proceedings or civil forfeiture proceedings are pending, the government
18
must demonstrate that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property. United
19
States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 377 (3d Cir. 1999).
20
There is no precise test for determining whether seized property should be
21
returned to a particular movant. Before exercising equitable jurisdiction and
22
reaching the merits, however, courts typically consider whether the movant will
23
suffer irreparable injury if the property is not returned. Ramsden v. United States,
24
2 F.3d 322, 324-325 (9th Cir. 1993). But see Doane v. United States, 2009 U.S.
25
Dist. LEXIS 61908, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2009) (holding that no showing of
26
irreparable harm is required for pre-indictment motion for return of property where
27
the government did not argue that the returning the property would interfere with a
28
grand jury investigation). The Court may also consider other factors such as (1)
3
1
whether the Government has displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional
2
rights of the movant; (2) whether the movant has an individual interest in and need
3
4
for the property she wants returned; and (3) whether the movant has an adequate
remedy at law for the redress of her grievance. Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 325.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Jurisdiction
As a preliminary matter, the Court first concludes that it has jurisdiction
because the funds at issue were seized from bank accounts in this district. See
Naylor Decl. ¶¶5, 8, 10. See also Trinh v. Citibank, N.A., 850 F.2d 1164, 1172 n.5
(6th Cir. 1988) (“The situs of a bank’s debt on a deposit is considered to be at the
branch where the deposit is carried.”).
B.
The SLE Trustee’s Possessory Interest in the Property
The SLE Trustee has produced satisfactory evidence that the funds sub
16
judice belong to the SLE Metals Bankruptcy Estate and that she is its proper
17
representative. As noted above, Ms. Naylor is the Bankruptcy Trustee named on
18
the Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in In re SLE Metals, Inc., No. 8:09-bk-16252
19
(C.D. Cal. June 24, 2009). Naylor Decl. ¶1, Ex. 1. The IRS provided copies of the
20
2006-2008 tax transcripts for SLE Metals, Inc. (Naylor Decl. ¶14, Ex. 8), which
21
have the same Taxpayer Identification Number as the SLE Metals Inc. entity that
22
filed for bankruptcy. Naylor Decl. ¶15, Exs. 4, 9. Moreover, the amounts of the
23
tax refunds listed in the IRS transcripts match the amounts deposited in the SLE
24
Metal In accounts. Compare Naylor Decl., Ex. 4 (copies of three refund checks for
25
SLE Metal, Inc. in amounts of $339,030, $463,799, and $211,655.69) with Ex. 8
26
(transcripts listing three refunds issued Dec. 28, 2009) and Fuller Decl. ¶5, Exs. A
27
(March 2010 commercial checking account statement accounting for
28
$1,013,984.69 in deposits posted on March 2, 2010 naming Eunice Y. Fdawi d/b/a
4
1
SLE Metal In as the accountholder) and B (March 2010 high yield savings account
2
statement showing $500 opening deposit entered March 2, 2010 also naming
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Eunice Y. Fdawi d/b/a SLE Metal In as the accountholder). The government
agrees that movant’s claims are legitimate, and nobody has come forward with
contrary claims. As such, the Court finds that the movant represents the interests
of the SLE Metals Estate, which, as the intended recipient of the refunds, retains an
interest in the property. Cf. United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc.,
621 F.3d 1162, 1172-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming order to return drug testing
records to a third-party baseball player association even though records were
seized from a drug testing facility). Finally, notice of the pending motion was
provided to potentially interested parties to the extent they are known, (Doc. No.
9), and no party has come forward disputing the Trustee’s interest.
C.
Irreparable Harm
A bankruptcy trustee has a duty to “collect and reduce to money the property
16
of the estate for which such trustee serves, and close such estate as expeditiously as
17
is compatible with the best interests of the parties in interest.” 11 U.S.C. §
18
704(a)(1). The Trustee argues that the government’s continued possession of the
19
funds at issue prevents her from discharging her duties, to the detriment of the SLE
20
Metals Estate and its creditors. Without the release of these funds, the Trustee
21
cannot complete the final claim analysis, file the final tax return for the Estate, or
22
make final distributions to its creditors. Naylor Decl. ¶18. The Court accordingly
23
finds that the Trustee has demonstrated irreparable harm.
24
D.
25
As the government has not filed a criminal action nor civil forfeiture
26
proceedings, the Trustee has no other remedy at law. And since the government
27
has no continuing need for the property, e.g., for use in a criminal investigation or
28
Other Considerations
prosecution, its continued retention is unreasonable. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)
5
1
Advisory Comm. Notes (1989) (“[R]easonableness under all of the circumstances
2
must be the test when a person seeks to obtain the return of property. . . . If the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
United States has a need for the property in an investigation or prosecution, its
retention of the property is generally reasonable. But, if the United States’
legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is returned, continued
retention of the property would become unreasonable.”). See also In re Grand
Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (Roe & Roe, Inc.), 49 F. Supp. 2d 451, 452-55 (D.
Md. 1999) (finding that the government had no “continuing evidentiary need” for
the food products seized, and ordering their return). The government’s position is
that the funds should be turned over to the Trustee. The Court therefore finds that
all relevant factors favor the return of the property at this point.
13
IV. CONCLUSION
14
15
Upon consideration of the papers and the entire record of this case, the Court
16
hereby GRANTS the Trustee’s Motion for the Return of Property Pursuant to
17
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). It is accordingly ORDERED that the
18
government promptly release the funds seized from SLE Metal In account and the
19
MDS account up to a total of $1,014,484.69 and turn them over to the Bankruptcy
20
Estate of SLE Metals, Inc. The parties shall certify compliance with this Order by
21
filing notice thereof with the Court by January 20, 2014.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
Dated: December 27, 2013
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?