United States v. Industria Brasileir

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Industria Brasileir

849 F.2d 1477, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7792, 1988 WL 60666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1988

Docket87-3669

StatusUnpublished

This text of 849 F.2d 1477 (United States v. Industria Brasileir) 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. Industria Brasileir, 849 F.2d 1477, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7792, 1988 WL 60666 (9th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

849 F.2d 1477

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Walter Huss and Rosalie Huss, Claimants-Appellants,
v.
INDUSTRIA BRASILEIR; Herbal Tea AA Nnatureza Pau D'arco,
Net Wt. 3 Oz.; Spotlight Newspaper, Defendants.

No. 87-3669.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 4, 1988.
Decided June 1, 1988.

Before WALLACE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and E. DEAN PRICE,* District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

Walter and Rosalie Huss (Husses) appeal from a summary judgment and an order granted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 334 for condemnation and destruction of the tea and accompanying labeling. As no stay was sought by the claimant, Priority Products, Inc., or the Husses, the condemned tea was released to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and destroyed.

We need not reach the question whether the Husses, who were not parties to the district court action, can bring this appeal. Even if they can, we have no jurisdiction.

We conclude that "forfeiture proceedings are in rem, [and therefore] the court's subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on its continuing control over the property." United States v. $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir.1987). When the property in question--the res--is removed from the control of the court, jurisdiction is thereby defeated. United States v. 66 Pieces of Jade and Gold Jewelry, 760 F.2d 970, 972-73 (9th Cir.1985). A forfeiture claimant may protect the court's control over the res by filing a stay of the district court's judgment pending appeal. Id. at 973. As no stay of the judgment was filed, the tea was properly turned over to the FDA for destruction. See id.; see also $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d at 1420-21.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Honorable E. Dean Price, United States District Judge, Eastern District of California, sitting by designation

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

849 F.2d 1477

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Walter Huss and Rosalie Huss, Claimants-Appellants,
v.
INDUSTRIA BRASILEIR; Herbal Tea AA Nnatureza Pau D'arco,
Net Wt. 3 Oz.; Spotlight Newspaper, Defendants.

No. 87-3669.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 4, 1988.
Decided June 1, 1988.

Before WALLACE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and E. DEAN PRICE,* District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

Walter and Rosalie Huss (Husses) appeal from a summary judgment and an order granted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 334 for condemnation and destruction of the tea and accompanying labeling. As no stay was sought by the claimant, Priority Products, Inc., or the Husses, the condemned tea was released to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and destroyed.

We need not reach the question whether the Husses, who were not parties to the district court action, can bring this appeal. Even if they can, we have no jurisdiction.

We conclude that "forfeiture proceedings are in rem, [and therefore] the court's subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on its continuing control over the property." United States v. $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir.1987). When the property in question--the res--is removed from the control of the court, jurisdiction is thereby defeated. United States v. 66 Pieces of Jade and Gold Jewelry, 760 F.2d 970, 972-73 (9th Cir.1985). A forfeiture claimant may protect the court's control over the res by filing a stay of the district court's judgment pending appeal. Id. at 973. As no stay of the judgment was filed, the tea was properly turned over to the FDA for destruction. See id.; see also $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d at 1420-21.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Honorable E. Dean Price, United States District Judge, Eastern District of California, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

849 F.2d 1477, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7792, 1988 WL 60666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-industria-brasileir-ca9-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack