United States of America v. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the United States' 26 motion to strike the Verified Claim and to 27 suspend the order and notice, and the interested parties' 28 motion to continue deadlines; in the event that reading of t he Verified Claim is inaccurate, directing the interested parties to file separate Verified Claims setting forth their respective ownership interests in the defendant property in accordance with Supplemental Admiralty Rule G(5) by 11/26/2012; denying the United States' 26 MOTION to Strike the Verified Claim; granting interested parties' 28 MOTION to continue deadlines; directing the interested parties to file their answers by the 15th day following entry of the Judgment; and this action is stayed pending the further order of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:12-0073

EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (825) FIREARMS,
more or less,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are the United States' motions to strike the
Verified Claim, filed October 22, 2012, and to suspend the order
and notice, filed the same day, and the interested parties'
motion to continue deadlines, filed October 23, 2012.
The United States' motion to strike notes that
interested party Kevin Britton filed a Verified Claim,
individually and as the owner and operator of Britton's Gun &
Pawn, Inc.

It further asserts that approach transgresses

Supplemental Admiralty Rule G(5).

That supplemental rule

provides as follows:
A person who asserts an interest in the defendant
property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim
in the court where the action is pending. The claim
must:

(A) identify the specific property claimed;
(B) identify the claimant and state the
claimant's interest in the property;
(C) be signed by the claimant under penalty
of perjury; and
(D) be served on the government attorney
designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or
(b)(ii)(D).
Supp. Admir. R. G(5)(a).

The entirety of the Verified Claim

provides as follows:
I, Kevin W. Britton, individually, and as
Owner/Operator of Britton's Gun & Pawn, [Inc.,] assert
an interest in defendant property, identified in
Exhibit A to the Second Amended Verified Complaint of
Forfeiture as Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825)
Firearms, more or less, based upon the fact that the
specified firearms are the lawfully owned and
possessed property of the Interested Parties.
(Verif. Claim. at 1).

The thrust of the Verified Claim is that

both interested parties, who appear to be separate entities, are
asserting joint ownership in the defendant property.
In the event that reading of the Verified Claim is
inaccurate, the interested parties are directed, no later than
November 26, 2012, to file separate Verified Claims setting
forth their respective ownership interests in the defendant
property in accordance with Supplemental Admiralty Rule G(5).
The court, accordingly, orders that the motion to strike the
Verified Claim be, and it hereby is, denied.

2

Respecting the interested parties' motion to continue
deadlines, it is stated, inter alia, as follows:
3. As the Court is aware, Interested Party Kevin
Britton is currently named in a seven-count indictment
. . . The Court has now continued the trial in
this matter three weeks, with trial to commence on
November 13, 2012.
. . . .
5. [A]nswering the Second Amended Verified Complaint
for Forfeiture, or otherwise filing motions in this
matter, prior to the conclusion of the criminal trial.
. . will implicate the Interested Part[y] Kevin
Britton’s rights against self-incrimination, as
protected under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
6. Mr. Britton is only seeking a very short
continuance of 30 days to permit the completion of the
criminal trial in case number 2:12-cr-00101-1.
(Mot. at 2).

On November 13, 2012, Mr. Britton pled guilty to

Count Four.

The better course, however, is to hold this civil

matter in abeyance pending the entry of Judgment in the related
criminal action.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, it is,
accordingly, ORDERED as follows:
1.

That the interested parties' motion to continue
deadlines be, and it hereby is, granted;

3

2.

That the interested parties be, and they hereby are,
directed to file their answers on or before the 15th
day following entry of the Judgment; and

3.

That this action be, and it hereby is, stayed pending
the further order of the court.
The Clerk is requested to transmit this written

opinion and order to all counsel of record and to any
unrepresented parties.
DATED:

November 16, 2012

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

4