United States v. $999,830.00 in United States Currency

Ninth Circuit

United States v. $999,830.00 in United States Currency

476 F. App'x 152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 2012

Docket11-15528

StatusUnpublished

This text of 476 F. App'x 152 (United States v. $999,830.00 in United States Currency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. $999,830.00 in United States Currency, 476 F. App'x 152 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Simard appeals the district court’s order striking his claim to $999,830 in this civil forfeiture proceeding and the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order. The district court concluded that Simard lacked Article III standing, struck his claim and entered judgment in favor of the government. The district court also denied his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court erred in granting the motion to strike by applying the standard of proof for a claimant asserting a posses-sory, rather than an ownership, interest in property. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, “[a]t the motion to dismiss stage, a claimant’s unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is sufficient by itself to establish standing.” United States v. $133,4.20.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.2012). A claimant asserting a mere possessory interest must do more, and explain their possession of the property. Id. Simard introduced a sworn declaration in support of his claim “asserting a legal right and ownership interest in the monies seized from me.” This unequivocal assertion of ownership establishes Article III standing at this stage of proceedings.

The disclaimer form and statements allegedly made by Simard during the traffic stop, and relied upon by the district court, may be relevant evidence at such time as a motion for summary judgment is filed. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 638-39. However, that evidence is not properly weighed against Simard’s unequivocal assertion of ownership for determining the existence of Article III standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

Because we hold that the district court erred in striking his claim, Simard’s appeal of his motion for reconsideration of that determination is moot.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Simard appeals the district court’s order striking his claim to $999,830 in this civil forfeiture proceeding and the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order. The district court concluded that Simard lacked Article III standing, struck his claim and entered judgment in favor of the government. The district court also denied his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court erred in granting the motion to strike by applying the standard of proof for a claimant asserting a posses-sory, rather than an ownership, interest in property. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, “[a]t the motion to dismiss stage, a claimant’s unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is sufficient by itself to establish standing.” United States v. $133,4.20.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.2012). A claimant asserting a mere possessory interest must do more, and explain their possession of the property. Id. Simard introduced a sworn declaration in support of his claim “asserting a legal right and ownership interest in the monies seized from me.” This unequivocal assertion of ownership establishes Article III standing at this stage of proceedings.

The disclaimer form and statements allegedly made by Simard during the traffic stop, and relied upon by the district court, may be relevant evidence at such time as a motion for summary judgment is filed. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 638-39. However, that evidence is not properly weighed against Simard’s unequivocal assertion of ownership for determining the existence of Article III standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

Because we hold that the district court erred in striking his claim, Simard’s appeal of his motion for reconsideration of that determination is moot.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F. App'x 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-99983000-in-united-states-currency-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack