United States v. Premises Known as 1625 S. Delaware Avenue

661 F. Supp. 161, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1399
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 25, 1987
DocketCiv. A. 86-5977
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 661 F. Supp. 161 (United States v. Premises Known as 1625 S. Delaware Avenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Premises Known as 1625 S. Delaware Avenue, 661 F. Supp. 161, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1399 (E.D. Pa. 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

The government has brought this civil forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7) alleging that the defendant premises “were purchased by Peter Donato with the proceeds of drug transactions” (Count I), and “have been used to commit and to facilitate the commission of the manufacturing methamphetamine” (Count II). John Renzulli and Michael Borelli, co-owners of the property, have moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it fails to satisfy the specific pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. E(2)(a).

Rule E(2)(a) requires that actions in rem, see Rule C, such as civil forfeiture proceedings, be pleaded with greater specificity than the mere notice pleading generally allowed in civil actions and provides:

In actions to which this rule is applicable the complaint shall state the circumstances from which the claim arises with such particularity that the defendant or claimant will be able, without moving for a more definite statement, to commence an investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading.

See Riverway Co. v. Spivey Marine & Harbor Service Co., 598 F.Supp. 909, 912-914 (S.D.Ill.1984); 7A J. Moore & A. Pelaez, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶!¶ E.02-.03 (2d ed. 1983); 12 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3242 (1973); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1227 (1969).

In addition to enabling the defendant or claimant to begin an investigation and to frame a responsive pleading, the particularity requirement affords the opportunity to form a reasonable belief that the claim has merit, Riverway Co. v. Spivey Marine & Marine Harbor Service Co., 598 F.Supp. at 913, guards against the improper use of the admiralty seizure proceedings and their drastic nature, and has been cited as a safeguard in cases upholding the constitutionality of the admiralty remedies against due process attack. Id. at 912-13; United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, 1217-18 (10th Cir.1986) and cases cited therein.

On one hand, the government is not required to plead facts sufficient to establish probable cause for the seizure, United States v. Banco Cafetero International, 608 F.Supp. 1394, 1405 (D.C.N.Y.1985), nor to plead its evidence, especially where the surrounding facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge, Riverway Co. v. Spivey Marine & Harbor Service Co., 598 F.Supp. at 913-14. On the other hand, contrary to the government’s argument, more than Rule 8(a) notice pleading is required and the defendant or claimant is expressly spared the burden of “moving for a more definite statement” pursuant to *163 Rule 12(e). While I disagree with the stringent pleading requirements imposed by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, and its remedy of dismissing the action, I conclude that to avoid dismissal the government must plead facts supporting the wholly conclusory allegation that the defendant property was purchased with drug proceeds and was used to manufacture methamphetamine. See United States v. Banco Cafetero International, 608 F.Supp. at 1401; 7 A J. Moore & A. Pelaez, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ E.03 at E-106. See also Riverway Co. v. Spivey Marine Harbor Service Co., 598 F.Supp. at 912-13 (drawing analogy between Rule 9(b) pleading requirement in fraud actions and Rule E(2)(a)). If an amended complaint is filed, it will be deemed to relate back to the date of the original filing and, therefore, it will not be necessary to release the property from seizure.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 1987, it is hereby ordered that the motion of John Renzulli and Michael Bodelli to dismiss plaintiffs complaint be granted unless within 20 days plaintiff amends it complaint in a manner consistent with the attached memorandum.

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

Related

United States v. Funds in the Amount of $9,800
952 F. Supp. 1254 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
United States v. One Partially Assembled Drag Racer
899 F. Supp. 1334 (D. New Jersey, 1995)
United States v. Premises Known as 5100 Whitaker Avenue
727 F. Supp. 920 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property With Buildings
705 F. Supp. 710 (D. Rhode Island, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 F. Supp. 161, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-premises-known-as-1625-s-delaware-avenue-paed-1987.