Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00817/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00817-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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, 

v. 

760 W Kent Pl., Chandler, AZ 85225, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00817-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave Second Amended 

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem” [sic] (Doc. 8). The Court now rules on the 

motion. 

I. Background

 The Government filed this civil forfeiture action in rem pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

981 to forfeit to its possession certain real property titled in the name of Claimant 

Elseddig Musa. (Doc. 1). Six days after the Government filed its initial complaint, it 

amended its complaint as a matter of course. (Doc. 4). Claimant subsequently filed a 

claim to the property that is the subject of this action, (Doc. 6), and answered the First 

Amended Complaint, (Doc. 7). 

 The Government now seeks leave to amend its complaint to add as defendants five 

sums of money seized from bank accounts titled in the name of Claimant or Claimant’s 

entity (the “Accounts”). (Doc. 8 at 2). The Government asserts that the Accounts are 

forfeitable based upon the same statutes and facts alleged in the original complaint. (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00817-JAT Document 11 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

II. Legal Standard

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15 provides, in relevant part, that “a 

party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 

court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(B). The decision whether to grant leave to amend lies “within the sound 

discretion of the trial court.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decreed that district courts should 

grant leave to amend “with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 

Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). This comports with the purpose of Rule 15 in 

“facilitat[ing] decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD 

Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. 

 In determining whether to grant a motion for leave to amend, a court should 

consider four factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and[] 

futility.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). “Generally, 

this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the 

motion.” Id. “The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing why the 

amendment should not be granted.” ABM Indus., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 

225, 227 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also DCD Programs, 733 F.2d at 188; Richardson v. 

United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 

III. Analysis

 Claimant’s sole argument in opposition to amendment is that the Government was 

aware of the existence of the Accounts “from the beginning” and because the 

Government had the opportunity to name the Accounts in both the initial complaint and 

the First Amended Complaint but failed to do so, it should not be permitted to now add 

them to this action. (Doc. 9 at 2). Claimant asserts that the Government first attempted to 

forfeit the Accounts via administrative forfeiture but Claimant filed an objection to this 

process. (Id.) Claimant implies that it is unjust for the Government, “over four months 

Case 2:14-cv-00817-JAT Document 11 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

later,” to attempt to forfeit the Accounts via judicial forfeiture. (Id.) 

 Claimant fails, however, to point to any legal authority that bars the Government 

from properly naming the Accounts as the defendant in a civil forfeiture action. 

Moreover, the Government asserts that if leave to amend is denied, it will file a separate 

civil forfeiture action naming the Accounts as defendants pursuant to its right to do so 

under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3). (Doc. 10 at 2). Claimant’s scant arguments concerning 

undue delay and prejudice do not show why the Court should deny leave to amend. 

IV. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s “Motion for Leave Second 

Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem” [sic] (Doc. 8). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government shall file its amended 

complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. 

 Dated this 10th day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00817-JAT Document 11 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 3