United States of America v. 2007 33' Hydra Sport Vessel
Filing
27
ORDER granting 22 Motion to Strike ; granting 25 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 11/18/2014. (VCC)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Case No. 12-1183 (PG)
2007 33’ HYDRA SPORT VESSEL
Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the United States’ various requests to strike
claimant Luis Oyola Marquez’ answer to the complaint and claim for return
of the seized defendant vessel. See Docket Nos. 16, 22 and 25. The
government argues that Oyola has failed to provide evidence of an actual
ownership interest in the defendant vessel and thus, lacks standing to
contest the forfeiture. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and
Order, the requests are GRANTED.
I.
The
United
States
Factual and Procedural Background
of
America
filed
the
Verified
Complaint
for
Forfeiture in Rem against the defendant vessel labeled as “Triple Threat”
and described as a 2007 33’ HYDRA SPORT VESSEL, bearing registration
number PR-6645AC and serial number GHYVHA05E607. See Docket No. 2. The
facts and circumstances surrounding the seizure and forfeiture of the
vessel are set forth in an unsworn declaration, signed by United States
Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent, Gabriel Hill, which was
attached to the Verified Complaint. See Docket 2-1. Claimant Luis Oyola
Marquez appeared to contest the seizure of the vessel claiming that he
was the owner. See Docket No. 10. Oyola also requested the return of the
confiscated vessel. Id.
The government moved to strike the answer to the complaint and
Oyola’s claims on the grounds that claimant had failed to properly answer
a special set of interrogatories aimed at determining whether he had a
sufficient interest in the property. See Docket No. 16 at ¶ 1. According
to the government, seeing as Mr. Oyola did not respond to discovery
requests and did not provide evidence as to his standing to contest the
Civil No. 12-1183 (PG)
Page 2
forfeiture, his claims of ownership and return should be stricken from
the record. Id.
The
court
ordered
Mr.
Oyola
to
respond
to
the
Special
Interrogatories within 21 days from entry of the Order. See Docket No.
17. On January 28, 2014 Oyola filed a motion in compliance stating that
he had “indeed complied with the Plaintiff’s claim and has responded to
interrogatories.”
See
Docket
No.
19.
He
attached
several
income
tax
returns. Id. Shortly thereafter, the government reiterated its petition
to strike petitioner’s claim arguing that neither the motion nor the
documents attached responded in any way to the special interrogatories.
See Docket No. 22. Oyola once again opposed the request. See Docket No.
23.
In
its
next
submission,
the
government
stated
that
Oyola
had
finally filed his response to the interrogatories, albeit more than five
months after their notification. See Docket No. 25. In any case, the
government
said,
the
responses
were
incomplete
at
best.
Citing
to
Supplemental Rule G(8)(c) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty of
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the government restated its
request that petitioner’s claim be stricken. Id.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions provide that a claimant can contest a forfeiture by
filing a claim, signed under penalty of perjury, which identifies the
property and the interest, within a certain time period following notice
of the complaint. Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i). To establish standing to
contest a civil forfeiture, a claimant must put forth some additional
evidence of ownership in addition to his allegation of ownership. U.S. v.
U.S. Currency, $81,000.00, 189 F.3d 28, 35 (1st Cir. 1999)(citing United
States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1992).
The government may then serve “special interrogatories limited to
the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property.”
Supplemental Rule G(6). The answer or objections to these interrogatories
must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories are notified. Id.
The purpose of the Rule G(6) special interrogatories “is to smoke out
fraudulent claims—claims by persons who have no colorable claims.” United
Civil No. 12-1183 (PG)
States
v.
Funds
Page 3
in
the
Amount
of
$574,840,
719
F.3d
648,
650
(7th
Cir.2013).
Hence, Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) provides that the government
may move to strike a claim or answer, at any time before trial, for
failure to comply with Rule G(5) or (6)—the provisions which govern
responsive
pleadings,
such
as
claims
and
answers,
and
special
interrogatories.
III. ANALYSIS
According
to
the
government,
Oyola
did
not
provide
sufficient
evidence in his answers to the special interrogatories to support his
claim of ownership of the defendant vessel. Upon review of the responses,
the Court agrees.
In Special Interrogatory No. 3, Oyola is required to “[s]tate with
particularity” his “current interest” in the vessel. Mr. Oyola simply
responded” “[i]t is my personal vessel and I hold [sic] fee simple
absolute.” See Docket No. 25-1 at page 3. Mr. Oyola did not submit any
documentation to support his ownership claim.
Likewise, when asked how he came into possession of the vessel,
“including a detailed description of the transaction(s) that generated
the acquisition of the vessel,” Mr. Oyola answered that he “personally
purchased the vessel from a boat dealer.” See Docket No. 25-1 at page 3.
He did not recall the name of the salesman nor did he explain the
provenance of the funds that he used to pay for the vessel. Id.
The government admits that the vessel was registered in Mr. Oyola’s
name at the time that it was seized. However, the property’s storage fees
were paid by someone else; an individual named Jehiel Estrada Peña. See
Docket No. 2-1 at page 3. Mr. Estrada received two fines while he was in
control of the vessel on 2010 and 2011. Id.
When asked to explain his relationship with Mr. Estrada, Claimant
simply said that “[t]his individual [Estrada] has a business next to my
business.” See Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9, Docket No. 25-1
at page 5. As to why Mr. Estrada was paying the storage fees for the
Defendant vessel, Claimant expressed: “[m]y understanding is that he was
paying me because he owed me money from rentals of equipment from my
business.” See Response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, Docket No. 25-1
at page 5.
Civil No. 12-1183 (PG)
Page 4
This explanation is insufficient and leaves behind more questions
than answers. What kind of business does Mr. Estrada have? What kind of
agreement did he enter into with Mr. Oyola whereby he would directly pay
the storage fees for a vessel supposedly owned by Mr. Oyola? Why did Mr.
Estrada received two fines related to the defendant vessel in 2010 and
2011?
The answers to those questions would shed light on Mr. Oyola’s
claim of ownership but he repeatedly failed to address them despite being
prompted on numerous times to show that he has a colorable possessory
interest
in
the
G(8)(c)(i)(A)
defendant
to
interrogatories.
strike
See
Fed.Appx. 886, 887 (10
striking
claimant’s
claims
e.g.
th
property.
for
U.S.
v.
Courts
failure
have
to
$285,350.00
relied
answer
in
U.S.
the
on
Rule
special
Currency,
547
Cir. 2013) (affirming judgment of District Court
claim
of
ownership
for
failure
to
answer
the
complaint); United States v. $4,290.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 12–3141,
2014 WL 859561, at *4 (C.D.Ill. Mar. 5, 2014)(striking claim for failing
to adequately respond to Rule G special interrogatories and to comply
with discovery orders and requests).
In addition, Oyola cites no legal authority that would support his
claim of standing. The fact that the vessel is in Oyola’s name does not
alone warrant the return of the property. Faced with a similar set of
facts, in U.S. v. U.S. Currency, $81,000.00, the court pointed out that
while claimant in that case had legal title to the seized property “the
question still remains whether he is a nominal or straw owner of the
property or a legal owner who exercised dominion and control.” U.S. v.
U.S.
Currency,
$81,000.00,
189
F.3d
28,
35
(1st
Cir.
1999).
Because
“[c]ourts have uniformly rejected standing claims put forward by nominal
or
straw
owners…even
insufficient
to
possession
establish
of
standing
legal
to
title
contest
to
the
the
res
may
forfeiture.”
be
Id.
(citation omitted).
Even though the defendant vessel is registered to Oyola, it was Mr.
Estrada who carried out affirmative acts of possession, such as paying
the docking fees and inquiring about the vessel’s whereabouts at the
marina. See Docket No. 2-1 at ¶¶ 4-5. Estrada was even fined twice while
in possession of the vessel. Id. Hence, the Court harbors no doubt that
claimant has failed to show standing to contest the forfeiture.
Civil No. 12-1183 (PG)
Therefore,
IT
Page 5
IS
HEREBY
ORDERED
AND
ADJUDGED
that
the
United
States' motions to strike the claim of Luis Oyola Marquez (Docket Nos.
16, 22 and 25) are GRANTED. The Verified Claim and Answer to Complaint
for Forfeiture in Rem filed by Luis Oyola Marquez in the above-captioned
case are STRICKEN pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental
Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions for
failure to comply with Supplemental Rule G(6).
IT IS SO ORDERED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 18, 2014.
S/JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?