United States v. $134,972.34 Seized from FNB Bank
Decision Date | 30 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV–15–S–6–NE. |
Citation | 94 F.Supp.3d 1224 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $134,972.34 SEIZED FROM FNB BANK, ACCOUNT NUMBER– 5351, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Amanda Schlager Wick, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, the United States of America, asserts a civil action in rem for the forfeiture of $134,972.34 in United States currency (“the defendant currency”) seized on August 20, 2014, from FNB Bank, account number– 5351, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2).1 The United States alleges that the defendant currency was involved in, or traceable to, acts of illegally structuring currency transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324.2 The case presently is before the court on the motion to dismiss and for return of the defendant currency or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement, filed by CWE Enterprises, Inc., and Carlton Wayne Edwards (collectively, “the claimants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule G(8)(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims.3 Upon consideration, the motion will be denied for the reasons set out below.
Civil asset forfeiture cases are governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A) (). The Supplemental Rules apply to, among other proceedings, “forfeiture actions in rem arising from a federal statute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. R. A(1)(B). Further, “[a] claimant who establishes standing to contest forfeiture may move to dismiss the action under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. R. G(8)(b)(i ) (bracketed alteration supplied).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for, among other reasons, “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).4 That rule must be read together with Rule 8(a), which requires that a pleading contain only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While that pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), it does demand “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted).
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (emphasis added).
Due to the nature of this case, however, the traditional pleading rules are modified by Rule G(2) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, which set out specific pleading requirements for forfeiture actions in rem. Courts are instructed to evaluate the sufficiency of a complaint seeking a forfeiture of assets by determining, among other things, whether the complaint meets that requirement of Supplemental Rule G(2) specifying that the pleading should “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)(f).5 The government's burden of persuasion was modified by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), Pub.L. No. 106–185, 114 Stat. 202 (codified primarily at 18 U.S.C. § 983 ), providing that “the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1).
In light of the requirements of Supplemental Rule G and CAFRA, it is unclear to what extent, if any, the Twombly/Iqbal “plausible claim for relief” standard applies to civil forfeiture complaints commenced by the government. Judge Kyle of the District Court of Minnesota illuminated this issue in United States v. Real Property and Premises, 657 F.Supp.2d 1060 (D.Minn.2009), where he observed that:
In the context of civil forfeiture proceedings, ... it is unclear whether, or to what extent, Twombly applies. Although Supplemental Rule G(8)(b)(i) expressly references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), which was discussed in Twombly [,] Supplemental Rule G(8)(b)(ii) states that “[t]he sufficiency of the complaint is governed by Rule G(2).” Supplemental Rule G(2), in turn, lists several items a forfeiture complaint must contain, including inter alia a description of the property to be forfeited, the location of the property, and “sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” Supplemental Rule G(2)(a)-(f). There are no similar requirements in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which sets forth the pleading standard for civil actions to which the Supplemental Rules do not apply. Hence, because the Supplemental Rules provide the standards against which a forfeiture complaint must be measured, it is questionable whether Twombly has any application here.
Real Property and Premises, 657 F.Supp.2d at 1065–66 ( ).
The Supplemental Rules make clear that they “apply to ... forfeiture actions in rem, ” and that the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental Rules. ” Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. R.A. (emphasis supplied). In Twombly and Iqbal, the issue before the Supreme Court was the standard to be applied in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, where Rule 8 governed the sufficiency of a pleading. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–58, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; see also American Dental Association v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir.2010) ( )(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (emphasis supplied)).
Thus, because Supplemental Rule G(2) governs the pleading standard for civil asset forfeiture cases, rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the standard enunciated and clarified in Twombly and Iqbal does not govern the sufficiency of such complaints.6 Instead, the heightened...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ing Bank N.V. v. Portland
...and the Admiralty Rules intermingle, occasionally even clashing. See SUP. MAR. R. A(2); United States v. $134,972.32 Seized from FNB Bank, Acct. No. 5351, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1229 (N.D. Ala. 2015). Whenever such a conflict emerges, the Admiralty Rules rightly control. SUP. MAR. R. A(1)-(2)......
-
United States v. 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe
...does not govern the sufficiency ofPage 24 such complaints." United States v. $134,972.34 Seized from FNB Bank, Account No.-£5351, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1229 (N.D. Ala. 2015). Instead, the plain language of the rule governs. Id. The Court agrees with the Government that, based on the above al......
-
United States v. One Check in the Amount of $47,000 Payable to Brian Deiorio
...is not directly applicable, but may nonetheless be generally informative. See, e.g., United States v. $134,972.34 Seized from FNB Bank, Account No.-£5351, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1229-30 (N.D. Ala. 2015); United States v. $22,173.00 in U.S. Currency, 716 F. Supp. 2d 245, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); U......
-
United States v. 15607 E. Girard Place
...to dismiss must disregard conclusory allegations in determining the sufficiency of a complaint does not conflict with Supplemental Rule G(2).” Id. --------- ...