UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Real Property Known as 200 Acres of Land Near FM 2686 Rio Grande City, Texas
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss; denying 12 Motion to Quash; denying 13 Motion to Dismiss; denying 13 Motion to Quash; denying 14 Motion to Dismiss; denying 14 Motion to Quash.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
REAL PROPERTY KNOW AS
200 ACRES OF LAND NEAR
FARM TO MARKET ROAD 2686
RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-00368
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
CLAIMANTS’ MOTIONS TO QUASH AND TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the Court on three Motions to Quash and Dismiss for
Insufficient Process and Service and three Motions to Dismiss for Improper Venue filed by
Claimants Ricardo A. Rodriguez (Mr. Rodriguez), Dr. Carlos Ricardo Tirado Tamez
(Dr. Tirado), and Cristina Rodriguez de Tirado (Ms. Tirado). (D.E. 12 at 1–4; D.E. 13 at 1–3;
D.E. 14 at 1–3.) The Court denies Claimants’ Motions to Quash and Dismiss for Insufficient
Process and Service and Claimants’ Motions to Dismiss for Improper Venue.
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2011, the United States of America filed a Verified Complaint for
Forfeiture In Rem pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A)&(C) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6)&(7),
which provide for the forfeiture of real property used in, involved in, or derived from drug
activities, money laundering, and other criminal activities described therein. (D.E. 1.) Dr. Tirado
is the record owner of the real property that is the subject of this civil forfeiture suit. (Id. at 3.)
The United States alleges that the true owner of the property is Carlos Alberto Oliva-Castillo
(Mr. Oliva), and that Mr. Oliva purchased the property with drug proceeds using Dr. Tirado as a
straw man to avoid detection of the asset by law enforcement. (Id. at 3–4.) The United States
alleges that Mr. Oliva utilized the real property to facilitate and receive proceeds from drug
activities. (Id. at 5.)
Claimants request that notice in this case be quashed and the case be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction because the United States failed to comply with the notice requirement under FED.
R. CIV. P. 4. Claimants received the notice posted on the property, but Claimants allege that
actual notice does not satisfy FED. R. CIV. P. 4.
The United States responds that it has attempted and is attempting service on the
Claimants pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4. The United States has submitted a Mutual Lateral
Agreement Treaty (MLAT) request through the U.S. Government’s Office of International
Affairs to properly serve Claimants in Mexico. (D.E. 18.) This is a time consuming process so
the government has also attempted to serve Claimants with notice via international mail at their
residence in Tamaulipas, Mexico. (D.E. 16 & 17.) And the United States posted notice of the
Complaint on an official government website and the property itself. (D.E. 11 & 20.)
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Motions to Quash and Dismiss for Insufficient Process and Service
The United States argues that Claimants waived their right to assert a defense of
insufficient service of process by failing to raise it in the Amended Answer filed by Dr. Tirado.
(D.E. 20 at 3.)
However, the Court struck the Amended Answer upon a motion by the
government. Striking a pleading or other motion serves to expunge it from the Court’s record,
and the document is subsequently treated as having never been filed. Williams v. American Tel.
and Tel. Co., 134 F.R.D. 302, 303 (M.D. Fla. 1991); Brown v. Ridgeway, 149 Cal. App. 3d 732,
2
736, 197 Cal. Rptr. 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). Consequently, Dr. Tirado’s Amended Answer
does not serve as a waiver of service of process.
The United States argues that Claimants have waived the defense of insufficient service
because their attorney conferred with the government’s attorney regarding discovery in this case.
The government has provided no authority to support this proposition. The Court declines to
hold that such action by the attorney constitutes a waiver.
In the case of forfeiture actions in rem brought pursuant to a federal statute, the
government’s failure to serve the property owner or known potential claimant with a notice and
copy of the complaint, despite its best efforts to do so, does not warrant dismissal of the action.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(2)(C), if the property owner cannot be located and served with notice
and a complaint, despite the government’s “exercise of due diligence, then constructive service
may be made in accordance with the laws of the State in which the property is located.”
Moreover, under Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(v), “[a] potential claimant who had actual notice of
a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government’s
failure to send the required notice.” Accordingly, dismissal of the government’s Complaint for
failure to serve Dr. Tirado and Ms. Tirado is not warranted.
This does not relieve the government from continuing in its efforts to properly serve Dr.
Tirado and Ms. Tirado under FED. R. CIV. P. 4. Only after efforts at service pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 4 have proved unavailing may the government attempt constructive service of process.
B.
Motions to Dismiss for Improper Venue
Claimants challenge the filing of the Complaint in the Corpus Christi Division of the
Southern District of Texas because the property which is the subject of this proceeding is located
in Starr County, Texas, which is not serviced by the Corpus Christi Division. (Id.)
3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1) provides that a “forfeiture action may be brought in (A) the
district court for the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture
occurred, or (B) any other district where venue for the forfeiture action or proceeding is
specifically provided for in section 1395 of this title or any other statute.” (emphasis added).
Section 1395 states that a civil action for the forfeiture of property “may be prosecuted in any
district where such property is found.” (emphasis added). Both of these statutes, as well as the
general federal venue statute for non-diversity cases, section 1391, refer to venue in terms of
districts, not divisions; under federal law, there is no requirement that venue be laid in a
particular division. Provided venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas, it is proper in
either the McAllen Division or Corpus Christi Division. Says v. M/V David C. Devall, 161 F.
Supp. 2d 752, 753 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, Claimants’ Motions to Quash and Dismiss for Insufficient
Process and Service (D.E. 12 at 1–3; D.E. 13 at 1–3; D.E. 14 at 1–3.) and Claimants’ Motions to
Dismiss for Improper Venue (D.E. 12 at 3; D.E. 13 at 3; D.E. 14 at 3.) are DENIED.
ORDERED this 24th day of May 2012.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?