United States of America v. Approximately $8000 US Currency

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on 6/2/2014 denying 19 Motion for More Definite Statement. (cc: all counsel) (llc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-CV-1459

APPROXIMATELY $8,000 IN
UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUIRING CLAIMANT TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER
The United States commenced a civil forfeiture action by filing a verified complaint
against the defendant, $8,000 in seized currency. (Verified Compl., Docket # 1.) The
claimant, Terry Cunningham (“Cunningham”) filed a verified claim (Claim, Docket # 10)
and an answer to the verified complaint (Answer, Docket # 13). The United States argues
that Cunningham’s answer is legally deficient. Before the Court is the United States’ motion
to require Cunningham to file an amended answer that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)
and 10(b). For the reasons stated below, the United States’ motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2013, the United States filed a verified complaint for civil
forfeiture in rem against the defendant property, approximately $8,000 in United States
currency, which was seized on July 29, 2013 from a vehicle in which Cunningham was a
passenger. (Exh. A to Verified Compl., ¶ 5, Docket # 1-1.) The complaint incorporates the
fourteen paragraph verifying affidavit of James H. Krueger, a Special Agent with the Drug

Enforcement Administration. (Compl. ¶ 6.) The verifying affidavit sets forth, in enumerated
paragraphs, the factual basis for the seizure and forfeiture of the defendant currency.
(Krueger Aff.) On January 8, 2014, the United States filed notice of the complaint and
served the notice by certified mail on Cunningham and his attorney. (Docket # 5.) On
January 21, 2014, Cunningham filed a verified claim to the defendant currency. On
February 13, 2014, the United States filed a letter notifying the Court that Cunningham’s
deadline to file an answer expired on February 11, 2014. (Docket # 12.) Cunningham filed
an answer the same day. Although Cunningham specifically admits or denies the allegations
in paragraphs 1-5 and 7-8 of the complaint, as to paragraph 6, which incorporates the
Krueger affidavit, Cunningham states that he “denies the factual allegations in paragraph 6
of the plaintiff’s complaint and its incorporated Exhibit A, in part because he lacks
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of some of the allegations in Exhibit
A.” (Answer at 1.)
ANALYSIS
The United States argues that Cunningham’s answer is deficient because he fails to
specifically admit or deny each enumerated paragraph in the Krueger affidavit. Rule G(5)(b)
of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions
provides that a claimant must serve and file an answer to the forfeiture complaint within 21
days after filing the claim. Rule G does not dictate the form the answer must take; however,
Rule G(1) provides that to “the extent that this rule does not address an issue, Supplemental
Rules C and E and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(1)(B) states that in responding to a pleading, a party must “admit or deny the
allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.” However, a party may assert a general

2

denial when the party intends “in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). If a party intends to deny only part of an allegation, the party must admit
the part that is true and deny the rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(4). Further, if a party lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation, the
party must state this and that statement has the effect of a denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5).
It appears that Cunningham is denying all of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the
complaint and Exhibit A; however, some of the denials are because he lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. The United States argues that
it is prejudiced because it lacks reasonable notice as to which allegations in the complaint
Cunningham seeks to place in issue. A reasonable reading of Cunningham’s answer is that
he seeks to place all of the allegations in Krueger’s affidavit in issue. Additionally, while
Cunningham does not state which of the allegations he specifically denies because of lack of
information, a reasonable reading of the answer is that Cunningham is denying the entirety
of paragraph 6 and the Krueger affidavit. As such, the United States’ motion is denied.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Require
Claimant Terry Cunningham to File an Amended Answer (Docket # 19) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2nd day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy Joseph _________ ___
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

3