United States of America v. $367,320.00 in United States Currency

Filing 30

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Strike 9 Claim of Right or Interest and Contesting of Forfeiture and denying 26 Motion to Strike Amended Claim of Right or Interest and Contesting of Forfeiture. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/4/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

$367,320.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,

13
Defendant.
14
15

)
) 3:12-cv-00630-LRH-WGC
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the court are the Government’s Motion to Strike Claim of Right or Interest and

16

Contesting of Forfeiture (#101) and the Government’s Motion to Strike Amended Claim of Right

17

or Interest and Contesting of Forfeiture (#26). Claimant Aaron Jacob Mangin (“Mangin”) has

18

filed objections to both motions (##17, 27), to which the Government has replied (##19, 28).

19

I.

Facts and Procedural History

20

Following the Government’s seizure of $367,320.00 from Mangin, it filed its Complaint

21

for Forfeiture in Rem (#1), to which Mangin filed his Claim of Right or Interest and Contesting

22

of Forfeiture (#9). After the Government’s Motion to Strike Claim for failure to comply with

23

Supplemental Rule G(5) (#10), Mangin filed his Amended Claim (#13) and his objection to the

24

Government’s Motion to Strike Claim (#17). The Government replied to Mangin’s objection

25

(#19) and also moved to strike his Amended Claim, stating that a claim is not a pleading, and

26

thus it cannot be amended (#26). Mangin’s objection to the Government’s Motion to Strike

27

Amended Claim (#27) and the Government’s reply to that objection followed thereafter (#28).

28
1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

II.

Discussion

2

Supplemental Rule of Federal Civil Procedure G governs civil forfeiture actions.

3

Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(B) requires a person asserting an interest in seized property to file

4

a claim “identify[ing] the claimant and stat[ing] the claimant’s interest in the property.” To state

5

an interest in the property, however, requires “more than conclusory or hearsay allegations of

6

some ‘interest’ in the forfeited property.” United States v. $100,348.00 in U.S. Currency, 354

7

F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Baker v. United States, 722 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.

8

1983)).

9

Under Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A), a claim may be stricken for failure to comply

10

with Supplemental Rule G(5). Mangin’s original claim that he “has a right or interest in said

11

$367,320.00 in U.S. Currency” is the type of conclusory allegation generally struck under

12

Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A). As such, the court grants the Government’s Motion and strikes

13

Mangin’s original Claim.

14

As to Mangin’s Amended Claim, the Government maintains it is not a pleading, and thus

15

it cannot be amended pursuant to Rule 15 of Federal Civil Procedure. Several factors, however,

16

suggest that claims are pleadings and can be amended under Rule 15. First, claims to seized

17

property, along with answers to the complaint, compose Supplemental Rule G(5), which is

18

entitled “Responsive Pleadings.” Second, the Advisory Committee Notes to Supplemental Rule

19

G(5) state that the word “‘[c]laim’ is used to describe this first pleading because of the statutory

20

references to claim and claimant.” FED. R. CIV. P. G(5) advisory committee’s note (emphasis

21

added). Finally, and perhaps most relevantly, the Advisory Committee Notes to Supplemental

22

Rule G(8) advise courts to strike claims for “failure to comply with the pleading requirements of

23

subdivision G(5) . . . only if satisfied that an opportunity should not be afforded to cure the

24

defects under Rule 15.” FED. R. CIV. P. G(8) advisory committee’s note; see also United States v.

25

$91,110.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 2:12-CV-01112, 2013 WL 1189700, *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 21,

26

2013). Thus, the court finds Mangin’s Amended Claim is appropriate under Rule 15(a)(1)(A).

27

Therefore, the court shall deny the Government’s Motion to Strike the Amended Claim.

28

///
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Strike Claim of Right

2

or Interest and Contesting of Forfeiture (#10) is GRANTED. Mangin’s Claim of Right or Interest

3

and Contesting of Forfeiture (#9) is STRICKEN.

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Strike Amended Claim of
Right or Interest and Contesting of Forfeiture (#26) is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED this 4th day of June, 2013.

8
9

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3