United States of America v. $29,410.00 in US Currency

Filing 18

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Strike Claim of Walter Kevin Moore, III; denying 16 Motion to Strike. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/4/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs
)
)
$29,410.00 IN THE UNITED STATES )
CURRENCY, More or Less,
)
)
Defendant.
)

NO. CIV-13-132-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike the claim of Claimant Walter Kevin
Moore III, a/k/a Walter John Moore III [Doc. No. 15]. Also before the Court is a motion to
allow Claimant an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion and to file motions related to
the pleadings filed by the United States on February 5, 2013 [Doc. No. 16]. Plaintiff has
filed a response to Claimant’s motion [Doc. No. 17].
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Claimant’s verified claim in this civil forfeiture case is
predicated on Claimant’s failure to file an Answer to the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture
In Rem filed February 5, 2013 and, more particularly, on Claimant’s failure to answer special
interrogatories served on Claimant on April 11, 2013. Claimant’s out-of-state counsel signed
for receipt of the discovery requests on June 27, 2013. The United States agreed to
extensions of time for Claimant to answer the special interrogatories until 2:00 p.m. on
September 26, 2013. No responses were submitted to Plaintiff. As Plaintiff points out, Rule
G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”) provides that “[a]t any time before trial the
United States may move to strike a claim or answer for failing to comply with ... Rule G(6).”
Rule G(6)(b) provides that “[a]nswers or objections to special interrogatories must be served
within 21 days after the interrogatories are served.”
Courts in this district and elsewhere have granted the government’s motions to strike
verified claims and answers for failure to respond to special interrogatories. See, e.g. United
States v. $40,449.00 in U. S. Currency, 2012 WL 234421 at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 25,
2012)(No. 11-362-F); United States v. $15,000.00 in U. S. Currency, 2012 WL 3000649 at
*2 (S.D. Miss. July 23, 2012)(No. 1:11CV97HSO-JMR); United States v. $29,970.00 in U.
S. Currency, 2010 WL 933762 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2010)(Civ. No. 1:09-139); United
States v. Approx. $24,700 in U. S. Currency, 2012 WL 458412 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10,
2010)(No. 2:10-cv-03118-GEB-DAD); United States v. Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred
Twelve and 00/100 Dollars, 2012 WL 4848979 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 11, 2012)(Civ. Action No.
2:12-cv-183); United States v. 2006 Dodge Charger SRT-8, 2011 WL 2601028 at *2-3 (E.D.
Tenn. June 30, 2011)(No. 3:09-CV-518). Supplemental Rule G allows the United States to
obtain information relevant to a claimant’s standing through special interrogatories so that
the United States does not have to defend a claim without minimal evidence of standing and
so that it can challenge standing by dispositive motion at an early stage. United States v.
$133,420.00 in U. S. Currency, 2010 WL 2594304 at *7 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2010)(No. CV09-8096-PCT-NVW).

2

In response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, Claimant, through counsel, states that he
first learned on September 27, 2013 in a call from Plaintiff’s attorney that no Answer had
been filed to the Verified Complaint. He says nothing in the response about the special
interrogatories. He requests that the Court allow Claimant to file a response to the motion
to strike; allow claimant to file responsive pleadings to the Verified Complaint filed on
February 5, 2013; and allow the Claimant to file motions and objections related to the special
interrogatories submitted by the United States. He states that without such requested relief,
Claimant will be deprived of his property in the sum of $29,410.00 in U. S. Currency.
Claimant’s response is too little, too late. As the Plaintiff points out in response to
Claimant’s motion [Doc. No. 17], it is not necessary for Claimant to request an opportunity
to respond to Plaintiff’s motion because pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(g), Claimant had
the opportunity and the obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s motion within 21 days after the
motion was filed. As to the filing of an Answer to the Verified Complaint, the Answer was
due many months ago. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A); Supplemental Rule G(5)(b). The
answers or objections to the special interrogatories were likewise due months ago and
Claimant has waived his right to object to them or file any motion directed to them. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4).
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the claim of Claimant
Walter Kevin Moore III, a/k/a Walter John Moore III [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED and
Claimant’s motion to allow him the opportunity to respond to the motion to strike and to file

3

motions related to pleadings filed by the government on February 5, 2013 [Doc. No. 16] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2014.

4