Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$79,010.00 in United States currency, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0244-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America moves for reconsideration of this Court’s March

17, 2011 order (Doc. 36). Doc. 38. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the

motion.

A. Legal Standard.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). A motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross, 2008

WL 1776502, at *2. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask

the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,

841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

B. Discussion.

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s March 17 order (“the Order”) overlooked or

misapprehended certain issues, resulting in manifest error. Doc. 38 at 1. More specifically,

Plaintiff argues that: (1) to the extent the Court treated Plaintiff’s mere failure to attach

Defendant’s disclaimer to its motion as dispositive, Plaintiff was not required to attach

extrinsic evidence in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; (2) to the extent the Court addressed only

Plaintiff’s Article III standing arguments and ignored the prudential standing arguments, the

Court should modify its order; (3) the Court misconstrued Rule G by failing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing whereby Claimant would be required to establish standing conclusively;

and (4) naked assertion of ownership of seized currency is not sufficient to establish

standing, Defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to meet his standing burden, and

therefore Defendant is not entitled to argue the merits of the case. Doc. 38.

1. Extrinsic Evidence.

After determining that Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss rather than a summary

judgment motion, the Court addressed Plaintiff’s claim that by signing a “disclaimer” form

Defendant gave up all rights to the currency. Doc. 36 at 2. As the moving party, Plaintiff

had the burden of persuading the Court that this legal conclusion was valid. The Court noted

that Plaintiff cited no legal basis for its argument, and that Plaintiff did not introduce the

disclaimer document in question. Id. Had the Plaintiff introduced a disclaimer form that

purported to extinguish Defendant’s rights in the currency, the Court could have considered

it by converting the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(d). With no legal or factual basis for its conclusion that Defendant gave up all rights to

the currency, Plaintiff failed to carry its burden. The Court properly rejected the argument.

2. Prudential Standing.

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss argued that Plaintiff lacked prudential standing because

he took himself out of the zone of interests when he claimed, at the traffic stop, that the

trailer contained no large amounts of cash and when he later signed a disclaimer stating the

currency was not his. Doc. 25 at 9. Nothing in the Court’s order indicated that only Article

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

III standing was considered by this Court. The Court held that Claimant met the standing

requirements at the motion to dismiss stage under United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d

1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as

stated in United States v. $80,180.00, 303 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002). Doc. 36 at 2.

In its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that $191,910.00 predates the new

Rule G and CAFRA. Doc. 38 at 3. Plaintiff could have made this argument in its motion to

dismiss, but it did not. In fact, Plaintiff did not draw a distinction between Claimant’s burden

at the motion to dismiss stage versus on a motion for summary judgment. Motions for

reconsideration are not the proper vehicle for making new arguments. Plaintiff may raise the

issue again on summary judgment.

3. Evidentiary Hearing.

Rule G(8)(c)(ii)(B) provides that the government’s motion may be “may be presented

as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion to determine after a hearing or by

summary judgment whether the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing by a

preponderance of the evidence.” The Court found that Plaintiff failed to follow the

procedure for presenting the motion as a motion for summary judgment, and therefore treated

the motion as a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. Doc. 36 at 2. Plaintiff concedes that it

did not file a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 38 at 2:27. Moreover, Plaintiff did not

affirmatively request an evidentiary hearing, nor did it request oral argument. Doc. 25.

Statements in a motion to dismiss about what the Court “may” do sua sponte are not

affirmative requests. Plaintiff presented its motion as motion to dismiss on the pleadings and

failed to persuade the Court of its legal arguments. The Court properly denied the motion

without a sua sponte evidentiary hearing.

4. Naked Assertions of An Ownership Interest.

In both its motion to dismiss and its motion for reconsideration Plaintiff asserts that

naked assertions of an ownership interest are not sufficient to establish standing.

Doc. 25 at 10; Doc. 38 at 7. Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court’s reliance on

$191,910.00 (Doc. 38 at 7), a case that the Ninth Circuit has not overruled with respect to

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

standing inquiries at the motion to dismiss stage. Although Claimant would have needed to

do more than assert ownership on a summary judgment motion, this was not such a motion

(Doc. 36 at 2).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 4