USA v. 35 Luxury Vehicles

Filing 75

ORDER granting 66 Claimant JITCO's Motion to Sever Eight Defendant Vehicles. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/1/2014. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
USA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-793-FtM-38CM

34 LUXURY VEHICLES,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Claimant JITCO Group Limited’s (JITCO)
Motion to Sever Eight Defendant Vehicles (Doc. #66) filed on August 28, 2014. The
United States filed its reply (Doc. #71) on September 18, 2014, indicating it does not
oppose JITCO’s Motion. This matter is ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
The United States seized 34 luxury vehicles of various makes and models in
June 2013. These seizures were pursuant to warrants signed by Magistrate Judge
Douglas N. Frazier, who found probable cause to believe the vehicles were subject to
forfeiture under 18 U.S.C § 981(a)(1)(C). The United States filed a civil Complaint
against the vehicles in rem, supported by the affidavit of an investigating Lee County
Sheriff Detective. The Complaint requested forfeiture of the vehicles under §
1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their
Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus,
the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the court.

981(a)(1)(c), alleging the vehicles were proceeds of wire fraud, money laundering, and
mail fraud. Several parties filed claims for the seized vehicles, among them JITCO, who
filed a claim to the following eight vehicles:
a. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C56D0E00403
b. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C53D0E05977
c. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C57D0E05982
d. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C55D0E05978
e. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C58D0E06056
f. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C52D0E05856
g. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C50D0E05855
h. 2013 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXZV4C59D0E05837
The United States filed its Second Amended Complaint against the 34 vehicles on
August 21, 2014, adding grounds for forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1595(a)(d). JITCO
then filed its Motion to Sever.
DISCUSSION
JITCO requests the claims against its eight defendant vehicles be severed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. JITCO argues joinder of its vehicles to the action is improper
because the claims do not arise from the same transactions, occurrences, or series of
occurrences as the other defendants in rem. JITCO also argues that severance will not
prejudice the other parties or cause undue delay. In response, the United States does
not concede any factual allegations contained in JITCO’s Motion, but does not object to
the claims being severed. The United States notes in its response the participants,

2

evidence, and some witnesses relating to JITCO’s vehicles are different from the other
defendant vehicles.
Rule 21 authorizes district courts to “sever any claim against any party.” “A
district court also has broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims under
Rule 21 and may consider factors such as judicial economy, case management,
prejudice to parties, and fundamental fairness.” Potts v. B & R, LLC, 8:13-CV-2896-T27TGW, 2014 WL 1612364 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2014); see Foster v. Auburn Univ.
Montgomery, No. 2:11–cv–503–WHA–CSC, 2011 WL 3875623, at *4 (M.D.Ala. Sept.1,
2011)(“[A] court's decision to sever parties under Rule 21 should be tempered by the
possibility of prejudice to the severed party.”); Acciard v. Whitney, No. 2:07–cv–476–
UA–DNF, 2008 WL 5120820, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Dec.4, 2008)(“Courts are given discretion
to decide the scope of the civil action and to make such orders as will prevent delay or
prejudice.”); Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521–22 (5th
Cir.2010)(considering fundamental fairness of joinder to the parties).
Applying these principles, the Court finds the severance of JITCO’s vehicles is
appropriate. The eight vehicles are unrelated to the other vehicles in this action, and it
will not prejudice the other parties or create unfairness by severing the claims from the
other defendant vehicles. Therefore, JITCO’s Motion to Sever Eight Defendant Vehicles
is due to be granted.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Claimant JITCO's Motion to Sever Eight Defendant Vehicles (Doc. #66) is
GRANTED.

3

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 1st day of October, 2014.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4