United States of America v. 2003 Socata TBM 700 Bearing U.S. Registration N6720Y

Filing 14

ORDER granting 13 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/28/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:13-cv-1147-Orl-37KRS

2003 SOCATA TBM 700 BEARING U.S.
REGISTRATION N6720Y,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem (Doc. 1), filed July 30,
2013;

(2)

The Clerk’s Entry of Default against Claimant Aircraft Guaranty Trust
(Doc. 11), filed October 28, 2013;

(3)

The Clerk’s Entry of Default against Claimant Consorcio Melun S.A. de
C.V. (Doc. 12), filed October 28, 2013; and

(4)

United States’ Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture (Doc. 13), filed
November 4, 2013.
BACKGROUND

This is an action in rem for civil forfeiture of an aircraft—2003 Socata TBM 700
Bearing U.S. Registration N6720Y—which was seized by the Department of Homeland
Security on or about November 21, 2012, in Deland, Florida pursuant to a warrant of
arrest in rem. (See Docs. 1, 5.) After filing proofs of service by publication and directly
on two prospective claimants, Plaintiff moved for entry of Clerk’s defaults pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (See Doc. 10; see also Docs. 8–9.) The Clerk
entered defaults against claimants Aircraft Guaranty Trust and Consorcio Melun S.A. de
C.V. (“Consorcio”). (See Docs. 11, 12.) Plaintiff then timely moved for final default
judgment of forfeiture pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). (Doc. 13.) To
date, no claimant has appeared in this action to assert any rights in the Aircraft, and
Plaintiff submitted a sworn statement that counsel for Consorcio advised that Consorcio
decided not to contest or otherwise defend this action. (See Doc. 10, p. 3; Doc. 10-1,
¶ 8; Doc. 10-3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 55(b) motion is ripe for the Court’s
adjudication.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the Court is authorized to
enter a final judgment of default against a party who has failed to plead in response to a
complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). By default, the defendant admits the plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations of fact. Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987);
Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). In a
forfeiture action, the complaint must “adhere to the pleading requirements set forth in
Rule E(2)(a) of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.” See
United States v. Two Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Russell Cnty., Ala., 92 F.3d
1123, 1126 (11th Cir. 1996); see also 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). Under this standard, a
forfeiture complaint must set forth “sufficient facts to provide a reasonable belief that the
property is subject to forfeiture: in particular, that the Government has probable cause to
believe that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the
exchange of a controlled substance.” Id. (quotation omitted). If a forfeiture complaint
provides sufficient allegations, and no claimant appears in the action after proper

2

service of process, then the Government is entitled to entry of a default judgment of
forfeiture pursuant to Rule 55(b). See United States v. $114,031.00 in U.S. Currency,
284 F. App’x 754, 757 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming default judgment in an in rem civil
forfeiture action); see also United States v. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars, 730 F.2d
1437, 1439 (11th Cir. 1984) (affirming denial of motion to reopen default judgment in an
in rem civil forfeiture action).
ANALYSIS
“Federal statutes provide that property is forfeited to the Government when it is
used or intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug activities . . . or when it constitutes
proceeds traceable to the exchange of money for a controlled substance.” Two Parcels
of Real Prop. Located in Russell Cnty., Ala., 92 F.3d at 1126. “[T]he critical issue in a
forfeiture case is whether the Government has shown probable cause which, unrebutted
by the claimants, is sufficient to permit forfeiture.” Id. Upon review of the record, the
Court finds sufficient grounds in the Verified Complaint and detailed Affidavit of Special
Agent Ryan Gorman to establish probable cause that the funds used to purchase the
Aircraft were traceable to or intended to facilitate a controlled substance exchange in
violation of the Controlled Substances Act. (See Doc. 1, pp. 20–24, 26; see also Doc. 5
(providing Warrant of Arrest In Rem).) Accordingly, forfeiture of the Aircraft is warranted
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Further, the record establishes that prospective
claimants have received proper notice of this action (Docs. 8–10), yet no claimants have
appeared in this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s Rule 55(b) motion is due to be granted, and the
Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1.

United States’ Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture (Doc. 13) is
GRANTED.

2.

On or before June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit to the
Court a proposed form of final default judgment to be entered in this
action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 28, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

4