United States of America v. $4,480,466.16 in funds seized from Bank of America account ending in 2653 et al

Filing 310

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 303 Motion to Stay Forfeiture Proceeding. The Court STAYS this forfeiture proceedings pending the resolution of the related criminal case. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 12/29/2020) (axm)

Case 3:17-cv-02989-X Document 310 Filed 12/29/20

Page 1 of 3 PageID 12499

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
$4,480,466.16 IN FUNDS SEIZED
FROM BANK OF AMERICA
ACCOUNT ENDING IN 2653; et al.
Defendants in rem.

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-02989-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 2017, the United States seized the claimants’ property and filed this civil
forfeiture action. After a lengthy investigation, the government filed an indictment
for crimes of which the in rem property is allegedly the proceeds or instrumentalities
of. The United States then moved to stay the civil forfeiture proceeding pending the
resolution of the related criminal case [Doc. No. 303]. For the reasons below, the
Court GRANTS the motion and stays the civil forfeiture proceeding.
I. Legal Standards
The Civil Asset Forfeiture statute establishes that “[u]pon the motion of the
United States, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court
determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to
conduct a related criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal
case.” 1

1

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).

1

Case 3:17-cv-02989-X Document 310 Filed 12/29/20

Page 2 of 3 PageID 12500

II. Analysis
The government contends that it possesses information that would adversely
affect the criminal prosecution if disclosed to the claimants at this time, and therefore
a stay is appropriate under section 981(g)(1). The claimants, however, point out that
the discovery deadline lapsed on October 4, 2018. 2

Because no more discovery

procedures are allowed, the claimants argue that there is no discovery to adversely
affect the government’s prosecution. The claimants therefore urge the Court to deny
the stay and set a deadline for the United States to respond to their motions for
summary judgment.
But formal discovery procedures are not the only mechanism that discloses
evidence and information between the parties. The Court has recognized that there
is “no relevant distinction between the forced disclosure of this information through
traditional discovery procedures and compelling the government to disclose this same
information for the purpose [of] opposing claimants’ summary judgment motions.” 3
Further, the claimants do not cite any authority for the proposition that a court
cannot stay a case under section 981(g)(1) if the scheduling order’s discovery deadline
expired.
In a sealed ex parte affidavit, the United States detailed how further discovery
would adversely affect its prosecution of the related criminal case. Because disclosure
via summary judgment response would be no different than disclosure through

2

Doc. No. 306 at 7 (citing Doc. No. 136).

3

Doc. No. at 219 at 6 (Fitzwater, J.).

2

Case 3:17-cv-02989-X Document 310 Filed 12/29/20

Page 3 of 3 PageID 12501

formal discovery, the Court determines that civil discovery would adversely affect the
ability of the government to conduct the prosecution of a related criminal case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay civil forfeiture proceeding and
stays the case.
III. Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay forfeiture
proceeding and STAYS this forfeiture proceedings pending the resolution of the
related criminal case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2020.

BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3