USA v. $822,694.81 in United States Currency Seized From Account No. XXXXXXXX7424 et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting 45 Motion for Reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Court adheres to its previous ruling. Please see attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 3/31/16. (Samuels, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
$822,694.81 IN UNITED STATES :
CURRENCY, SEIZED FROM ACCOUNT :
NO. XXXXXXXX7424, HELD IN THE :
NAMES OF GODWIN EZEEMO AND
:
WINIFRED C.N. EZEEMO, AT BANK :
OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:

Case No. 3:13-CV-00545 (RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
The United States has moved for reconsideration of the
ruling granting the motion to intervene filed by the law firm of
Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski & Zuber ("Weycer").

The government seeks

reconsideration on the basis that the Court overlooked the
existence of other victims who can trace their funds to the
relevant account and therefore stand on equal footing with
Weycer.

Allowing Weycer to intervene as the beneficiary of a

constructive trust will result in unequal treatment of these
other victims, the government submits, so the Court should
reconsider its decision to impose a constructive trust.

For the

following reasons, the government's motion for reconsideration is
granted but the Court adheres to its previous ruling.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
strict.

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
1

1995).

"A motion for reconsideration may not be used to plug

gaps in an original argument or to argue in the alternative once
a decision has been made."

Lopez v. Smiley, 375 F. Supp. 2d 19,

21-22 (D. Conn. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Likewise, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to
relitigate issues already decided.

Id. at 22.

Reconsideration

should be granted only if the moving party "point[s] to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to
alter the conclusion reached by the court."

Shrader, 70 F.3d at

257.
The government's motion does not show that there are indeed
other victims who can directly trace their funds to the Bank of
America account as required for the imposition of a constructive
trust.

As recounted by the parties in the original briefing on

this motion, when Weycer discovered that the check it had
received was fraudulent, it contacted Bank of America to try to
reverse the wire, but the Bank placed a hold on the account such
that Weycer's money could not be returned.

The government and

the Ezeemos point out that other deposits and withdrawals were
made after the date of Weycer's transfer, but the parties do not
seem to dispute that the Bank froze Weycer's money after the
attempted recall.

Bank statements showing deposits by victims do

not necessarily demonstrate that those victims can trace their

2

specific property to the funds seized from the account.

See

United States v. Benitez, 779 F.2d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1985) ("It
is hornbook law that before a constructive trust may be imposed,
a claimant to a wrongdoer's property must trace his own property
into a product in the hands of the wrongdoer.").

The motion

therefore does not appear to raise an issue that the Court
overlooked that might alter the decision to allow Weycer to
intervene.
Even assuming the government can show that other victims are
similarly situated to Weycer in terms of their ability to trace
their funds directly to the Bank of America account, that does
not negate Weycer's standing to intervene as the beneficiary of a
constructive trust in the funds it wired to the account.

The

government argues that intervention by other victims who can
trace will result in claims that exceed the value of the fund.
By definition, however, funds that can be traced must exist in
the account.

See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust

Enrichment § 58 cmt. a (explaining that tracing requires the
claimant to "identify property in the hands of the recipient that
represents or embodies - if it is not identical with - property
obtained at the claimant's expense or in violation of the
claimant's rights").

Moreover, as the Court explained in its

original ruling, the law does not require pro rata distribution
of forfeited fraud proceeds at the expense of victims who can

3

trace their losses.
Accordingly, the government's motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 45) is hereby granted, and the Court adheres to its
previous ruling.
So ordered this 31st day of March 2016.
/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

4