USA v. $23,940.00 in United States Currency et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying as moot 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 18 Motion to Amend/Correct. See attached memorandum. The parties are directed to proceed with preparation for a hearing on the merits and to inform the Court of the date by which they will be prepared for a hearing to resolve their competing claims. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/18/15. (Shechter, N.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$23,940.00
IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant Currency
and
KIERRON STANLEY,
Claimant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:14-CV-01226 (VLB)
November 18, 2015
ORDER GRANTING CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO ADMIT PURSUANT TO RULE 36 [Dkt. 18]
I.
Factual Background
Before the Court is this civil action in rem brought to enforce the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides for the forfeiture of property
which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any listed violation of
law or any offense constituting specified unlawful activity, and 21 U.S.C. §
881(a)(6), which provides for the forfeiture of proceeds traceable to the exchange
of controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. By Verified Complaint of Forfeiture filed on August 25, 2014, the
United States (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on December 9, 2013, Connecticut State
Police stopped a blue Honda Accord for an expired registration. [Dkt. 1 at ¶ 6.]
Claimant Kierron Stanley (“Claimant”), who was operating the vehicle at the time
of the traffic stop, indicated that the car belonged to his brother’s mother-in-law.
[Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.] In response to further questioning, Claimant also indicated that he
had approximately $23,000.00 in cash in the vehicle from proceeds of his
predominately cash business, “Best Offer.” [Id. at ¶ 8.] Claimant maintained that
he was planning a trip to New York to purchase inventory for his business and
that the source of the funds was a co-owner of his business. [Id. at ¶ 9.]
Claimant then consented to a search of the vehicle, which uncovered a) stacks of
U.S. currency totaling $23,940.00 (“Defendant Currency”), b) one box of “Tilla
Food Saver” heat-sealed rolls, c) a heat-sealed bag containing approximately 4.5
grams of marijuana, and d) six prepaid cellular telephones. [Id. at ¶ 10.] The
Defendant Currency was subsequently seized for initiation of the instant
forfeiture proceedings. [Id. at ¶ 12.]
According to Plaintiff, on October 16, 2014, Plaintiff served its First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Claimant, to which Claimant
provided his initial responses on December 2, 2014 and his document production
and signed releases on February 6, 2015. [Dkt. 16 at 6.] On January 22, 2015,
Plaintiff also served its First Set of Requests for Admission on Claimant
(“Requests for Admission”). [Id.] However, Claimant failed to respond, and on
May 12, 2015, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the basis that Claimant’s
failure to respond to the Requests for Admission rendered the matters stated
therein admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). [Dkt. 16.]
Claimant has now moved for leave to amend his responses to the Requests
for Admission and seeks to deny that: 1) the food saver rolls and cell phones
found in the car were to facilitate the distribution and sale of narcotics (Request #
12); 2) that Claimant possessed the Defendant Currency seized to facilitate the
purchase of narcotics (Request # 13); and 3) that the Defendant Currency was the
proceeds from the sale of narcotics or controlled substances (Request # 14).
[Dkt. 18.] For the reasons below, Claimant’s Motion to Amend/Correct his
responses to the Requests for Admission is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment based on those responses is DENIED as moot.
II.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 permits a party to request certain
admissions from other parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. In keeping with its
purpose, Rule 36(a) provides that requests which are neither objected to nor
answered shall be deemed admitted. Id. at 36(a)(3). By operation of Rule 36(b),
such an admission is conclusive unless the court relieves the party of the
admission. Moosman v. Joseph P. Blitz, Inc., 358 F.2d 686, 688 (2d Cir. 1966). As
the Government correctly notes, the “decision to excuse the defendant from its
admissions is in the court’s discretion.” Donovan v. Carls Drug Co., Inc., 703 F.2d
650, 651–52 (2d Cir. 1983), rejected on other grounds by McLaughlin v. Richland
Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133–34 (1988). “Upon [a] motion [under Rule 36(b)], the
Court may amend or withdraw an admission when (1) ‘it would promote the
presentation of the merits of the action’ and (2) ‘if the court is not persuaded that
it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on
the merits.’” Broad Music, Inc. v. Hub at Cobb's Mill, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-01237
(VLB), 2015 WL 1525936, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 2, 2015) (citation omitted).
A party's loss of the “right to contest a matter on the merits is not to be
treated lightly.” O'Bryant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 107 F.R.D. 45, 48 (D.Conn. 1985). In
exercising its discretion the court should strive to balance the equities, and
where the party relying on the admission would not be prejudiced, thereby strive
to resolve the issue on the merits.
III.
Discussion
The Government has not established that it will be prejudiced in its ability
to maintain or defend this action on the merits if Claimant is permitted to
withdraw his admissions. “The prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) ... is not
simply that the party who obtained the admission now has to convince the trier of
fact of its truth . . . . [but] relates to special difficulties a party may face caused by
a sudden need to obtain evidence upon withdrawal or amendment of an
admission.” River Light V, L.P. v. Lin & J Intern., Inc., 299 F.R.D. 61, 63–64
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal brackets and citations omitted); see also Vandever v.
Murphy, 3:09CV1752 AWT, 2012 WL 5507257, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 14, 2012). Here,
the Government does not claim that it faces any special difficulties and given the
facts, the court cannot conceive of any. It is clear that the Government has
always known that Claimant disputed the source and purpose of the Defendant
Currency: specifically, in its pleadings the Government alleges that since the day
the Defendant Currency was seized, Claimant has consistently contended that
those funds were legitimate business proceeds or capital, and not the proceeds
of drug sales. The Government cannot thus be surprised by Claimant’s denials to
those Requests for Admissions. Nor does the Government suggest facts
supporting its argument that it will be prejudiced by the untimeliness of
Claimant’s denials. The only fact cited by the Government in opposition to
Claimant’s Motion to Amend/Correct is the length of time the Claimant took to
withdraw his admissions. This is insufficient to establish that the Claimant’s
delayed formal denial, which is consistent with Claimant’s prior consistent
assertions, is prejudicial.
The facts of this case militate in favor of allowing Claimant to withdraw his
admissions. The Government knew that the Claimant has consistently denied,
and therefore was likely to continue to deny, the assertions contained in the
interrogatories, and therefore the requests for admissions were little more than a
deadline trap for the unobservant claimant. The Court will not inequitably deprive
the claimant of the right to a resolution of his claim on the merits on the basis of
such a technicality.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court grants Claimant’s Motion to Amend/Correct and will
permit him to withdraw his admissions and deny the requests to admit in
conformity with Claimant’s earlier claims. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment based on Claimant’s prior admissions is therefore denied as moot,
without prejudice to refiling based on Claimant’s amended responses to the
Requests for Admission. The parties are directed to proceed with preparation for
a hearing on the merits and to inform the Court of the date by which they will be
prepared for a hearing to resolve their competing claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________/s/______________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: November 18, 2015
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?