Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02124/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

- 1 - 05cv2124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv2124 DMS (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Docket No. 13]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint. Defendant filed its motion on September 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed his opposition

on September 22, 2006, and Defendant filed its reply on October 6, 2006. The motion came on for

hearing on October 13, 2006. Richard M. Barnett, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and David B.

Wallace, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants

Defendant’s motion.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In July and August of 2000, employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seized

hundreds of handguns, long guns, ammunition, smokeless powder, lead bullets and jacketed bullets

from Plaintiff Thomas Foster. (Second Am. Compl. at 2.) These seizures were accomplished pursuant

to search warrants issued by this Court. (See Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss,

Exs. A-C.) 

Case 3:05-cv-02124-DMS-RBB Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 5
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 - 05cv2124

On September 13, 2001, the government commenced a civil forfeiture action against

approximately five hundred of the firearms described above. Plaintiff filed a claim to the property,

and he ultimately reached an agreement with the government to resolve that claim. (See Pl.’s Opp’n

to Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C.) The agreement provided that fifty of the firearms would be forfeited to

the United States, and the remaining firearms would be returned to Plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) 

More than three years later, Plaintiff filed the present action against the United States pursuant

to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq., alleging a claim of negligence.

He asserts the government and its agents “negligently damaged the firearms, lost parts to firearms,

destroyed the packaging various firearms were contained in, mixed ammunition, destroyed the

packaging for collectors ammunition, and destroyed other packaging.” (Second Am. Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $189,881.00, as well as costs and other

relief.

II.

DISCUSSION

As stated above, Plaintiff’s negligence claim is based on the FTCA. Pursuant to the FTCA,

“[t]he United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the

same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be

liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. This waiver of

sovereign immunity, however, is subject to numerous exceptions. 

In this case, Defendant relies on the exception set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), which maintains

sovereign immunity for: 

Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty,

or the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs

or excise or any other law enforcement officer, except that the provisions of this

chapter and section 1346(b) of this title apply to any claim based on injury or loss of

goods, merchandise, or other property, while in the possession of any officer of

customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer, if – 

(1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision

of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence

imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense; 

(2) the interest of the claimant was not forfeited; 

Case 3:05-cv-02124-DMS-RBB Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 5
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 - 05cv2124

(3) the interest of the claimant was not remitted or mitigated (if the property

was subject to forfeiture); and 

(4) the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which the interest of the

claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal criminal

forfeiture law. 

28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claim arises out of the detention of goods by a law

enforcement officer, therefore it is immune from Plaintiff’s claim. 

Plaintiff does not appear to dispute Defendant’s assertion that his claim arises out of the

detention of goods by a law enforcement officer. However, he asserts he meets the four requirements

of the exception to the exception. That exception waives sovereign immunity for damage to property

if the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture, the plaintiff’s interest was not forfeited,

remitted or mitigated, and the plaintiff was not convicted of a crime related to the forfeited property.

Defendant takes issue with the first requirement only: that “the property was seized for the purpose

of forfeiture under any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as

a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)(1). Defendant

contends the property was seized for the purpose of investigating a criminal proceeding, not for the

purpose of forfeiture, therefore the exception does not apply. 

As mentioned above, the property at issue in this case was seized pursuant to warrants issued

by this Court. At the time the warrants were issued and executed, Plaintiff was under indictment in

this Court, charged with conspiracy to make false records in gun transactions, making false records

in gun transactions, and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 924(a)(1)(A).

(See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.) In the July 28, 2000 probable cause affidavit submitted

in support of one of the search warrants, Special Agent Harry Penate stated the storage spaces to be

searched were “registered to Tom FOSTER who is currently under indictment and in federal custody.”

(Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B.) Agent Penate also stated the items to

be seized included “firearms, firearms records, papers and documents which evidence the sale or other

disposition of firearms by Thomas Foster, or Shooter’s Emporium, a Federal Firearms Licensee.” (Id.;

See also Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Exs. A, C.)

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-02124-DMS-RBB Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 5
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 - 05cv2124

In addition to the criminal case then pending against Plaintiff, the government was also

investigating Plaintiff’s son, Cornelio Thomas Foster-Torres, at the time the warrants were issued and

executed. (See Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Exs. A-C.) Indeed, soon after

the warrants were executed, Plaintiff’s son was indicted on one count of conspiracy to unlawfully deal

in firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(a)(1)(A) and 924(a)(1)(D). (Def.’s Mem. of P. &

A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. E.)

Despite this context, Plaintiff argues the property at issue in this case was seized for the

purpose of forfeiture. To support this argument, Plaintiff cites the Complaint for Forfeiture filed

against the property at issue. (See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B.) As the government points

out, however, that Complaint was filed on September 13, 2001, more than one year after the property

was actually seized. 

At oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel offered another piece of evidence to support his

argument: an April 10, 2001 letter from Lisa Simon, a seizure and forfeiture specialist with the

Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That letter states Plaintiff’s

property was seized “for forfeiture.” Plaintiff asserts this statements constitutes an admission that his

property was seized “for the purpose of forfeiture,” therefore the government has waived its immunity

from this claim. 

Regardless of whether this letter constitutes an admission, however, it is of limited, if any,

relevance to the issue of whether Plaintiff’s property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture. Like

the Forfeiture Complaint referenced above, this letter post-dates the actual seizure of Plaintiff’s

property by approximately nine months. Although it indicates that as of April 10, 2001, the

government had commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings against the property, it says nothing

about the government’s intent immediately preceding the seizure of the property.

The only evidence of the government’s purpose for seizing the property are the search

warrants. As mentioned above, these documents identified the firearms as evidence of a crime. In

light of this evidence, and the context surrounding the seizure of Plaintiff’s property, the Court

concludes the property was seized for the purpose of investigation, not forfeiture. Accordingly, the

government has not waived its sovereign immunity from Plaintiff’s claim, and it must be dismissed.

Case 3:05-cv-02124-DMS-RBB Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 05cv2124

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2006

DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02124-DMS-RBB Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 5 of 5