after that did the district court regain jurisdiction over the property when the statute says that you have to return the property if you don't file a complaint with the ninety days of your putting it very briefly are right for the government doesn't file a complaint ninety days are you saying the jurisdiction to compel the government to return the property as the statute requires no your honor because this new statute does not require only that the government return the property the statute itself has three options and there actions i'm just saying take the simple case of the government failing to file a complaint and nothing else happened so they have an obligation to return the property now are you saying the district court doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce that obligation because the plant very disgruntled they dismiss the action and has jurisdiction to enforce the obligation if no other court has acquired jurisdiction over the property well has another co property here in this instance the state court acquired jurisdictional in acquired jurisdiction over the property at the time that the case was dismissed by the by the federal government on a video really just trying to force the law no not automatically her as a result of the anticipatory seizure warrant that had been possession of the property is not the in the story in that case the federal government had custody of the property and had taken the property from the state authorities after the state authorities had filed a state forfeiture action the state court your action was lying dormant that the state court of jurisdiction in the case went on to find that the mere fact that the possession that the federal government possessed the property was not enough to be a determining factor found that while the possession is nine tenths of the law found in favor of the one if you later well it's not empty because what happened here is the government when faced with the options to return or release the property and that takes into account the fact that the government chose not to attempt to keep the case alive by the issue is and it's a fine thing i think and i grant that the district court's jurisdiction to order the release or return of the property it's going to be a factual determination based on how long the government has held onto the property here there was a delay between me and the dismissal of the complaint and the release of the property but the reason for that the lie had a lot to do with with the the logistics of returning property and i had something also to do with the fact that this was an issue of first impression and it was real is not crystal clear and it still is not crystal clear what what the government's entitle to do but it does seem clear that these party cause of action to go against the government to return the property and i don't think it does forcible right what it does give the claimant to a right to do is bring a motion for return of property and if the government has held onto the forfeiture proceeding was dismissed and the process of turning the property over to the state officials had commenced before the motion for return of property was filed well that's not quite accurate the motion was filed in march and the property wasn't burned over til april after the jurisdiction had tacked on the motion while the check your facts on what the government did was after the motion was filed they moved the property out from under the tried to move the probably outcome of the jurisdiction give it to me i know it was a part order from the state but the government had the property and they held on to it until after the motion was filed and you looked at the papers and decide if you can turn it over anyway the question your honor and i will not contest here that this could have been handled better the question is whether that what the court points out is this attachment of jurisdiction at the time the motion for return property was still in the government's custody at the time the motions filed the district court's decision was that the reason that it still had jurisdiction was because the release of the property was improper under section ninety three because the ninety days had passed and because the warran jurisdiction in my case between the state and federal court is because there had been no affirmative act by the state court by which it was divested of jurisdiction and therefore the federal court never properly acquired jurisdiction here there was a affirmative act that cut species that's pretty clear but the problem is that in this case there is a statute that obligates the government to return the property and that could be interpreted as in the district court to enforce that obligation so it's not like the usual case of the forfeiture case the advocates you cite this is a case where you have a statute that creates an affirmative obligation on the part of the united states to return the property i agree honor but but what that statute the affirmative obligation that it imposes is to return our release the property and there is another statute statute that create existed section ninety three this provision that we're talking about that gave the government  of motive to discontinue for which are proceedings on the commencement of proper actions by state authorities and turn their property over to for the purpose of doing state forfeiture proceedings during forfeiture proceedings absolutely but that's not this case because here fo proceedings were terminated before the property was turned over to i would i would direct the court to the statute ninety one seven if it requires that the purchaser proceedings be this continued prior to the release of not this case this case they saw dismissal of the complaint because it was filed to lay out in favor of the proceeding that is certainly the argument of the claimants and it was the interpretation adopted by the district court what i would point out to the court is the government was not compelled to take this course the government had three options once it was determined that the complaint had been filed in daylight one of them was to do with the district court suggested and what the government successfully did in united states versus thirty now and thirty nine thousand four hundred eighty dollars apply to the court for a one day tolling equitable tolling of the of the ninety day time limit and revive the save the case and then go forward with the case is a federal case another option was to exercise the court is that there is some argument in the briefs by the claimants that this is some sort of escape hatch that will allow the government to end its own discretion in any case just just abandon a forfeit your case and turn the property over to the state that it's not true in practical terms in fact it's going to be a rare case such as this one where the state is in a position to commence forfeiture proceedings under state law where the federal government decides not to but but the idea before the answer is filed the government determines through further investigation that while there was plenty of specified a lawful activity going on the procedure that is identified in the complaint are not proceeds of that's about five unlawful activity under those circumstances if though if that property is su still goes to motive though because to the extent that there is some motive to be read into ninety one you seven the government presumably will never dismiss a case in favor of state proceedings if the things they can win in the federal for the dividing line isn't whether the government really wants to dismiss the case the dividing line is whether the government chooses voluntarily to dismiss the case this case can be distinguished and should be distinguished from other cases in which the removal of property from the court's jurisdiction has been deemed improper this isn't a case like mora where the government lost the property and didn't know where it was made a claim that some of it might have been given back to one of the motions been filed so in the open expectation the district court will not be able to order the return of the money i think respectfully disagree with the court in terms of its characterization of that first of all that the actual release of the money certainly did is the remedy here the government cannot return the property at this point it doesn't have anymore and it hasn't had the question is what is the government supposed to do and reach in response to a motion for return of property the the remedy that the claimant is entitle to is the return of the property if the repopulate is not available because it has been lost or destroyed because it is no longer available at all and the government cannot return it then one potential remedy is to ask the returned to the coins there was some property in this case in fact there was some money as well that was not part of the war the state warning that property was returned to the coins the only property that was transferred  property that was and was in the future one but the point is under ninety one he seven not only is there or is there no waiver sovereign immunity with respect to damages there's an explicit statement that the government need not be held liable for the seizure of our transfer of the property under that section now the next question is are they entitled to some sort of award in regard to this the question  estate proceedings it's determined by the court the state court that these assets are subject to forfeiture because they represent proceeds of nothing federal trafficking these are clearly not with the claim to come back to the federal government and say give me two hundred fifty thousand dollars fifteen of the opinion the courts and indeed the government itself acknowledges the lasting jurisdiction of this court in its initial verified complaint for forfeiture when it says the defendant assets are currently in the custody of the united states marshals service where they will remain subject to court's the court's jurisdiction during the pendency of this action citing government's opposition exhibit b at paragraph six now are we to attempted to file the time they filed a motion for return of property the basis for that rejection by the district court was that the claim could be filed because the forfeiture action had been dismissed and was no longer a fact them there was a couple of other cases that there's a lot of cases matter of fact allow a claim to go to court and say even though there's no forfeiture action pending they have the right to file an action sake please return this property to me well public actually this case was a joint investigation between the riverside sheriff's department and the dea and together they brought together they seize the property and what happened was it was the joint choice for  say this warrant was executed improperly the state court has no power over this property because the first of all the water expired number one number two the court said the court had jurisdiction of the property what it but you can sanction ok sure you do that so you can sanction the value of the property so you don't get the actual value of the property but you can actually if you look at the property so they can they can section of the value of property that's what the government said  government can do with their partners and seizing the property they can very easily make a phone call and say return the property back if they chose to do so question is the court have the power to order them to do that maybe not but but the court found a did have the jurisdiction to order the government to return that property and had not been transferred at that point so whether it should have been started the contempt and the  value of the property being returned or whether it should be the property itself may be that that should be the language of the series of almost mutually exclusive you know one theory i participate in a joint investigation or if with the federal government adopts a state seizure then any successful forfeiture is shared between the federal government and the state agency th riverside l a county district attorney's office or whoever so shortly bring the case the feds actually file the case in federal court but if the case is successful then actually up to eighty percent  the government attorney telling me sherman who is the attorney for the claimants not to file the claim in the action was disputed but it doesn't make sense for her not to file the claim it's it's the government had assured her that people transferred it the court was in a position to be able to render an order in fairly claimants returning the property but was still pending happen and i don't know what the remedy is you know far as dealing with the state on a return of the actual property but in this case i think the court has fashion an actual remedy which which the court did at least for the value of the money the question is as far as the vehicle themselves whether the federal government can order their partner or ask the partner to return the car themselves i don't know if the federal government will do that i think the district  that it would work but i assume river so i can always say no and then then you go into the relationships between the parties in trying to do theaters in the future and riverside says no we're not going to cooperate with our government considers that to been a timely execution of the warrant despite the fact that probably wasn't turned over right away and they were not aware of the filing of the motion for return of property was there no discussion no understanding about the fact that this  in court well the just the discussion was for the they were in agreement with the government's feeling that we were proceeding properly under section one hundred twenty seven and that the district court's jurisdiction and then cut off at the time not have delayed the release of the property ending the filing of the motion and when you realize the mistake did you call up and say please return it looks i made a mistake would you please send it back because i want to make it right having done the wrong thing having did you make that phone call i did not sure honor because i did not leave the phone call now and let us know i i can certainly make the phone call to the los angeles