UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-1951 (JEB) 8,911 TYPE 56-1 ASSAULT RIFLES, et al.,
Defendants In Rem.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Having seized an arsenal of weapons from four vessels in the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea, the United States brought this forfeiture action in rem. The Defendant Properties
are collections of conventional weapons and related munitions, including rifles and anti-tank
missiles of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian origin. The Government alleges that the Defendant
Properties are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(G)(i) as assets of the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated foreign terrorist organization. As no
one else has claimed an interest or otherwise defended the action, the Clerk of Court entered a
default on October 16, 2023. See ECF No. 7 (Entry of Default). The Government now moves
for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Rule G(7) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. See ECF
No. 9 (Pl. Mot. for DJ). As the United States has sufficiently demonstrated that the allegations in
its Verified Complaint warrant such judgment, the Court will grant the Motion.
I. Background
Given the default in this case, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the Government’s
Complaint as true. The IRGC “‘is a non-traditional instrumentality of Iran,’ serving as ‘the
1 military arm of a kind of shadow government answering directly to the Ayatollah and the
mullahs who hold power in Iran.’” Christie v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-1289, 2020 WL
3606273, at *3 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020) (quoting Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F. Supp. 2d
40, 47 (D.D.C. 2006)). In 2019, both the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department
of State designated the IRGC a Foreign Terrorist Organization. See ECF No. 9-1 (Pl. Mem.
Supporting DJ) at 3. The Treasury and State Departments have both determined that the IRGC
“direct[s] and implement[s] a global terrorist campaign against nations and regimes [that] they
deem to be adversarial and provide support and aid to those nations and regimes they deem allied
with their goals and principles.” Id. For example, the IRGC “provide[s] military support for the
Houthi movement in Yemen against the United Nations (‘U.N.’)-recognized Yemini
government.” Id. at 4. The United States is “investigating an Iranian maritime weapons
smuggling network” that “directly supports military action by the Houthi movement in Yemen”
and related terrorist activities in Yemen and the surrounding region. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.),
¶ 1. That investigation led to this forfeiture action. Id.
In this case, the U.S. Navy separately interdicted four stateless dhow vessels during
“routine maritime security operations conducted in and around the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea.” Id., ¶ 25. These interdictions led to the seizure of “four large caches of
conventional weapons, including long arms and anti-tank missiles, and related munitions — all
of which were determined to be primarily of either Iranian, Chinese, or Russian origin.” Id., ¶
26. The seizures took place “in accordance with international law” on or around December 20,
2021, May 6, 2021, January 6, 2023, and January 15, 2023. Id., ¶ 25. A U.S. Central Command
official concluded that in the case of all four seizures, “[t]here is no plausible way these weapons
2 and munitions could have gotten onto the vessels between Iran and Yemen except that the
[IRGC] has continued a pattern of smuggling lethal aid to Houthi forces in Yemen.” Id., ¶ 27.
The Government filed its Verified Complaint on July 6, 2023, and obtained a warrant for
arrest in rem on July 18, 2023. See id. & ECF No. 4 (Warrant). The Government began posting
notice on a government-forfeiture site for 30 days beginning August 2, 2023. See Pl. Mem.
Supporting DJ at 5. No claims were filed, and the Clerk of Court entered default on August 20.
See Entry of Default. The Government now moves for default judgment and seeks forfeiture of
Defendant Properties.
II. Legal Standard
A court may enter default judgment when the “party against whom a judgment . . . is
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “This form of relief is no less appropriate when the defendant
in question is property,” and “unless a claimant properly intervenes to raise defenses to its
forfeiture, the defendant property is deemed to have ‘failed to plead or otherwise defend’ against
the allegations, and the Clerk of Court must enter default.” United States v. All Assets Held in
Account Number XXXXXXXX, 330 F. Supp. 3d 150, 156 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a)).
Once default is entered, the defendant “is deemed to admit every well-pleaded allegation
in the complaint.” Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001); see Trans World
Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 63 (2d Cir. 1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363 (1973); see also 10A Wright &
Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2688.1 (4th ed. 2021) (defaulting “defendant has no further
standing to contest the factual allegations of plaintiff’s claim for relief”). Nevertheless,
3 “[m]odern courts are . . . reluctant to enter and enforce judgments unwarranted by the facts,”
Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and “a district court may still deny an
application for default judgment where the allegations of the complaint, even if true, are legally
insufficient to make out a claim.” Gutierrez v. Berg Contracting Inc., No. 99-3044, 2000 WL
331721, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000); see also United States v. $1,0171,251.44 of Funds
Associated with Mingzheng Int’l Trading Ltd., 324 F. Supp. 3d 38, 45 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[T]he
defendant[’s] default notwithstanding, the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgement only if the
complaint states a claim for relief.”) (second alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., 564 F. Supp. 2d 22, 26–27 (D.D.C. 2008)).
III. Analysis
Before looking at the allegations in the Complaint, the Court examines its jurisdiction and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-1951 (JEB) 8,911 TYPE 56-1 ASSAULT RIFLES, et al.,
Defendants In Rem.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Having seized an arsenal of weapons from four vessels in the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea, the United States brought this forfeiture action in rem. The Defendant Properties
are collections of conventional weapons and related munitions, including rifles and anti-tank
missiles of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian origin. The Government alleges that the Defendant
Properties are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(G)(i) as assets of the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated foreign terrorist organization. As no
one else has claimed an interest or otherwise defended the action, the Clerk of Court entered a
default on October 16, 2023. See ECF No. 7 (Entry of Default). The Government now moves
for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Rule G(7) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. See ECF
No. 9 (Pl. Mot. for DJ). As the United States has sufficiently demonstrated that the allegations in
its Verified Complaint warrant such judgment, the Court will grant the Motion.
I. Background
Given the default in this case, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the Government’s
Complaint as true. The IRGC “‘is a non-traditional instrumentality of Iran,’ serving as ‘the
1 military arm of a kind of shadow government answering directly to the Ayatollah and the
mullahs who hold power in Iran.’” Christie v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 19-1289, 2020 WL
3606273, at *3 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020) (quoting Blais v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 459 F. Supp. 2d
40, 47 (D.D.C. 2006)). In 2019, both the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department
of State designated the IRGC a Foreign Terrorist Organization. See ECF No. 9-1 (Pl. Mem.
Supporting DJ) at 3. The Treasury and State Departments have both determined that the IRGC
“direct[s] and implement[s] a global terrorist campaign against nations and regimes [that] they
deem to be adversarial and provide support and aid to those nations and regimes they deem allied
with their goals and principles.” Id. For example, the IRGC “provide[s] military support for the
Houthi movement in Yemen against the United Nations (‘U.N.’)-recognized Yemini
government.” Id. at 4. The United States is “investigating an Iranian maritime weapons
smuggling network” that “directly supports military action by the Houthi movement in Yemen”
and related terrorist activities in Yemen and the surrounding region. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.),
¶ 1. That investigation led to this forfeiture action. Id.
In this case, the U.S. Navy separately interdicted four stateless dhow vessels during
“routine maritime security operations conducted in and around the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea.” Id., ¶ 25. These interdictions led to the seizure of “four large caches of
conventional weapons, including long arms and anti-tank missiles, and related munitions — all
of which were determined to be primarily of either Iranian, Chinese, or Russian origin.” Id., ¶
26. The seizures took place “in accordance with international law” on or around December 20,
2021, May 6, 2021, January 6, 2023, and January 15, 2023. Id., ¶ 25. A U.S. Central Command
official concluded that in the case of all four seizures, “[t]here is no plausible way these weapons
2 and munitions could have gotten onto the vessels between Iran and Yemen except that the
[IRGC] has continued a pattern of smuggling lethal aid to Houthi forces in Yemen.” Id., ¶ 27.
The Government filed its Verified Complaint on July 6, 2023, and obtained a warrant for
arrest in rem on July 18, 2023. See id. & ECF No. 4 (Warrant). The Government began posting
notice on a government-forfeiture site for 30 days beginning August 2, 2023. See Pl. Mem.
Supporting DJ at 5. No claims were filed, and the Clerk of Court entered default on August 20.
See Entry of Default. The Government now moves for default judgment and seeks forfeiture of
Defendant Properties.
II. Legal Standard
A court may enter default judgment when the “party against whom a judgment . . . is
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “This form of relief is no less appropriate when the defendant
in question is property,” and “unless a claimant properly intervenes to raise defenses to its
forfeiture, the defendant property is deemed to have ‘failed to plead or otherwise defend’ against
the allegations, and the Clerk of Court must enter default.” United States v. All Assets Held in
Account Number XXXXXXXX, 330 F. Supp. 3d 150, 156 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a)).
Once default is entered, the defendant “is deemed to admit every well-pleaded allegation
in the complaint.” Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001); see Trans World
Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 63 (2d Cir. 1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363 (1973); see also 10A Wright &
Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2688.1 (4th ed. 2021) (defaulting “defendant has no further
standing to contest the factual allegations of plaintiff’s claim for relief”). Nevertheless,
3 “[m]odern courts are . . . reluctant to enter and enforce judgments unwarranted by the facts,”
Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and “a district court may still deny an
application for default judgment where the allegations of the complaint, even if true, are legally
insufficient to make out a claim.” Gutierrez v. Berg Contracting Inc., No. 99-3044, 2000 WL
331721, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000); see also United States v. $1,0171,251.44 of Funds
Associated with Mingzheng Int’l Trading Ltd., 324 F. Supp. 3d 38, 45 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[T]he
defendant[’s] default notwithstanding, the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgement only if the
complaint states a claim for relief.”) (second alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., 564 F. Supp. 2d 22, 26–27 (D.D.C. 2008)).
III. Analysis
Before looking at the allegations in the Complaint, the Court examines its jurisdiction and
the sufficiency of notice to potential claimants.
A. Jurisdiction
As a threshold matter, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction on three independent
grounds: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a), which provides that district courts “have original
jurisdiction . . . of any action or proceeding for . . . forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred
under any Act of Congress”; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1345, which provides the district courts with
jurisdiction over proceedings commenced by the United States; and (3) 14 U.S.C. § 522(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 2461(b), which provide jurisdiction for property subject to forfeiture on the high
seas.
This Court thus has in rem jurisdiction to issue a forfeiture order, and this holds true
regardless of “[w]hether or not [the] foreign government will ultimately choose to comply.”
United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2013); see also
4 United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 2d 205, 211
(D.D.C. 2011).
B. Notice
A forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute is governed by Supplemental
Rule G of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Government satisfied the Supplemental
Rule G requirements here. Rule G(4)(a)(i) states that “[a] judgment of forfeiture may be entered
only if the government has published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the
complaint or at a time the court orders.” The Government fulfilled this obligation by posting
timely notice on an official government-forfeiture website, www.forfeiture.gov, for at least 30
consecutive days, as required by Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C). See Pl. Mem. Supporting
DJ at 9. Although the Government was also required to provide direct notice “to any person who
reasonably appear[ed] to be a potential claimant on the facts known to [it]” and to send the notice
“by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant,” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R.
G(4)(b)(i), (iii)(A), it was “unable to identify any potential claimants” — such as owners of the
vessels from which the material was seized. See Pl. Mem. Supporting DJ at 9 (citing ECF No. 6-
1 (Aff’d in Support of Default), ¶ 5).
C. Merits
Supplemental Rule G also requires that the Complaint “identify the statute under which
the forfeiture action is brought” and “state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable
belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp.
R. G(2)(e)–(f).
Plaintiff brings this action under the Civil Forfeiture section of Title 18, Crimes and
Criminal Procedure. Specifically, it claims that Defendant Properties are subject to forfeiture
5 under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(G)(i), which permits forfeiture of “[a]ll assets, foreign or domestic”
“of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any . . . Federal
crime of terrorism . . . against the United States.” The Government has alleged sufficient facts to
establish that the weapons seized belonged to the IRGC. As explained in the Complaint and
documented by U.N. reports, “[T]he IRGC has a documented history of smuggling weapons
from Iran to the Houthis in Yemen.” See Pl. Mem. Supporting DJ at 10. Here, the Government
persuasively relies on an authority from the U.S. Central Command, who concluded that “[t]here
is no plausible way” the forfeited property could have been on the interdicted vessels “except
that the [IRGC] has continued a pattern of smuggling lethal aid to Houthi forces in Yemen.”
Compl., ¶ 27. And as a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, the IRGC fits within the
definition of the statute. See Pl. Mem. Supporting DJ at 3, 10.
The Court, accordingly, finds that the Government has met its burden here.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the Government’s Motion for Default
Judgment. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge
Date: December 1, 2023