Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00694/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00694-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-694-MEF

)

ONE PARCEL OF PROPERTY )

LOCATED AT 867 COUNTY ROAD )

227, CLANTON, CHILTON )

COUNTY, ALABAMA, WITH ALL )

APPURTENANCES AND )

IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-1104-MEF

)

EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FOUR ) (WO- Do Not Publish)

HUNDRED ($18,400) DOLLARS )

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the United States’ Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint (Doc. # 98) filed on April 9, 2010. At the April 9, 2010 Final Pretrial Conference,

counsel for Claimant Mara Lynn Williams (“Williams”) indicated that Williams would

oppose any attempt by the Government to amend the allegations of the Verified Complaint

(Doc. # 1), but on this date Williams’s counsel has filed a response indicating that Williams

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 10
2

does not object to the motion for leave to amend because she can not claim surprise or

prejudice and because she does not believe the Government is seeking to amend the

Complaint in bad faith. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the

motion is due to be DENIED. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this lawsuit brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), Plaintiff United States of

America (hereinafter “Government”) seeks forfeiture of one parcel of property which it

alleges was used to facilitate the manufacturing of marijuana and a sum of currency also

seized from the property. Royce Williams (hereinafter “Decedent”) and his wife Mara Lynn

Williams (hereinafter “Williams”), owners and occupants of the property, filed claims of

ownership for the parcel of real property. 

On July 31, 2007, the United States commenced this in rem action, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), seeking the forfeiture of the residence and surrounding lands located at

867 County Road 227, Clanton, Chilton County, Alabama (“ the Parcel”). It did so on the

grounds that the property was used or was intended to be used, to commit, or to facilitate the

commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). This verified allegation was erroneous in

that the United States apparently intended to allege, but did not, that the property was used

or intended to be used, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) and (b). 

On December 19, 2007, the United States commenced a second in rem action,

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 10
 This case was styled, United States v. Williams, 2:08-cr-196-MEF. 1

3

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), seeking the forfeiture of the $18,400 in United States

Currency, on the grounds that the currency constituted monies furnished, or intended to be

furnished, in exchange for controlled substances, or represents proceeds of trafficking in

controlled substances or was used or intended to be used to facilitate violations of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 801 et seq. The two cases were consolidated. Both Williams and Decedent filed verified

claims. 

The Verified Complaints arise out the a search of the Parcel in July of 2007. On July

27, 2007, law enforcement agents executed a search warrant on the Parcel. As a result of this

search law enforcement agents seized approximately 408 marijuana plants, 3 plastic tub

containers of dried marijuana, $18,400 in United States currency, firearms, weight scales of

a type used in drug trafficking, items used in marijuana cultivation, and drug paraphernalia.

On October 1, 2008, a grand jury returned a three count Indictment against Decedent

charging him with manufacturing more than 100 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I); and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or

substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1

Decedent proceeded to trial on the charges against him. At trial he testified that he had

grown the marijuana for a number of years, and he admitted smoking marijuana regularly.

While the jury was deliberating and before a verdict was reached, Decedent took his own life.

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 10
 By this date, the United States was represented by Tommie Brown Hardwick, who 2

is currently lead counsel for the United States. 

4

A suggestion of death was filed in this action. No motion for substitution was made and

consequently, Decedent’s claims were dismissed from this action. Williams’ claims remain,

and she contends that she is an innocent owner of the defendant property and that the

property is not forfeitable. 

In March of 2008, the counsel for the parties submitted a Report of Parties’ Planning 2

Meeting suggesting a trial in November of 2008 and proposing a deadline of April 18, 2008

for any amendment to the pleadings. On March 25, 2008, this Court entered a Uniform

Scheduling Order (Doc. # 41) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. This Uniform

Scheduling Order set a deadline of June 6, 2008 for the amendment of the pleadings by any

party. The United States did not object to this deadline, nor did it file any motion seeking to

extend it prior to its passing. 

Nearly a month after the first deadline for amendment of pleadings, the United States

filed a motion seeking to stay the consolidated cases. For good cause shown, this motion was

granted. On June 12, 2009, the Court entered another Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. #

52). This time the trial was set for March 8, 2010. The Court specifically noted that the

deadline for filing motions to amend the pleadings had expired and would not be extended.

See Doc. # 52 at § 4. Again the United States did not object. 

In December of 2009, the attorney originally representing Williams and Decedent

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 4 of 10
5

withdrew and Williams’ current counsel filed his appearance in the case. Williams sought

leave to demand a jury trial. The Court granted this motion over the United States’ objection.

This resulted in the trial being continued to May 3, 2010. Additionally, the Court granted an

extension of the deadline for the completion of discovery and certain other deadlines in the

Uniform Scheduling Order of June 12, 2009, but specifically declined to change the deadline

for amending pleadings. Nonetheless, on January 27, 2009, counsel for Claimant sought

leave to amend the Answer filed by his predecessor on February 18, 2008. This motion

stated good cause for the relief requested and was not opposed. The Court granted it. 

Long after the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions had passed, the United

States sought leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the

forfeitability of the Parcel. The Court granted the United States leave to file the motion out

of time. The Court considered the merits of the motion and denied the request for partial

summary judgment on April 5, 2010. 

On the morning of April 9, 2010, counsel for the parties appeared for before the Court

for a Final Pretrial Conference. Prior to this appearance, the parties had jointly prepared and

submitted a Proposed Pretrial Order. The United States’ contentions in this Proposed Pretrial

Order alleged that the Parcel was used or intended to be used, to commit, or to facilitate the

commission of a violation of Title 21 United States Code, Section 801, et seq. A material

variance from the allegations of the July 2007 Verified Complaint with respect to the alleged

basis for the forfeiture of the Parcel. The Court noted this variance and asked counsel for

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 5 of 10
 It is not at all clear to the Court that the United States intentionally attempted to 3

amend its allegations by its contentions. All counsel seemed absolutely unaware of the

significant defect in the Verified Complaint, a document prepared by an attorney no longer

with the United States Attorney’s Office prior to current counsels’ appearances in this case.

Nonetheless, the effect of the proposed contentions was a material change to the legal

predicate for the forfeiture of the Parcel. 

6

Williams if there was an objection to the United States’ attempt to amend the Complaint

through the unverified contentions in the Proposed Pretrial Order, which after its entry would

supplant the pleadings, including the original Verified Complaint. Counsel for Williams

indicated at that time that there was an objection to such an amendment. The Court indicated

that absent a properly supported motion for leave to amend the Verified Complaint, the Court

would not allow the amendment the United States proposed. The United States filed its 3

written motion. Either as a result of a negotiated compromise with the United States in order

to correct a deficiency in her own contentions in the Proposed Pretrial Order or because she

did not believe that the legal grounds for opposing the United States’ motion pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 existed, Williams stated that she did not oppose the

motion. 

DISCUSSION

The issue before the Court is whether the Court should allow a material allegation of

a verified complaint to be amended more than twenty-two months after the deadline set for

such amendments and less than one month before trial. The United States argues that Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires this Court to freely give leave to amend the pleadings

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 6 of 10
7

when justice so requires. The United States fails to address a significant exception to that

rule, namely where there has been undue delay. See, e.g., Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari

Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1124 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the district

court did not err in denying the motion for leave to amend due to undue delay where plaintiff

sought to amend months after the deadline for filing dispositive motions passed); Carruthers

v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2004) (same); Lowe’s Home

Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court finds that the

United States unduly delayed in seeking to correct this significant error of law, not fact, in

its allegations. For this reason, its motion is due to be DENIED. 

Furthermore, the Court finds that the parties have failed to address the proper standard

for the relief sought. By arguing grounds pursuant to Rule 15, the United States overlooks

that, given the procedural posture of this case, the applicable standard is that set forth in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a

schedule, such as the ones this Court set by entering the Uniform Scheduling Orders in this

case, “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause” and by leave of court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (emphasis added). By seeking to file a motion to amend out of time,

the United States is necessarily seeking a modification of a deadline imposed by this Court

pursuant to its authority under Rule 16. It is well-settled that in making a motion for leave

to amend a pleading after the deadline set by a court’s scheduling order, a party must show

good cause exists for its untimely attempt to amend the party’s claim. See, e.g., Southern

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 7 of 10
 It is worth noting that in each and every one of these cases, the Eleventh Circuit 4

Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend filed after

the deadline for such amendments as set by the scheduling order. 

8

Grouts & Mortars, Inc., v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d 1235, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2009) (applying the

Rule 16 good cause standard rather than the more liberal standard of Rule 15 to attempt to

amend pleading after deadline set by Court’s scheduling order is appropriate); Romera v.

Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2008) (same); Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d

1253, (11th Cir. 2008) (same); Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218,

1231-32 (11th Cir. 2008) (same); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir.

1998) (same). “To establish good cause, the party seeking the extension must have been 4

diligent.” Romero, 552 F.3d at 1319. Where a party fails to diligently ascertain the

applicable law, that party cannot satisfy the good cause standard. Id. The failure of a party

or its counsel to understand a point of law does not constitute good cause. Oravec, 527 F.3d

at 1232 (explaining that a plaintiff did not establish good cause by stating that it did not know

about the jurisdictional defect of its claims until notified of those defects by the district court

after the deadline for amending pleadings). 

The United States contends that it discovered what it explains was a typographical

error in the Verified Complaint only when the Court brought it to counsel’s attention at the

Final Pretrial Conference and that it immediately sought leave to amend the Verified

Complaint. The United States contends that it is seeking to correct its error “at the earliest

possible moment.” The Court disagrees. Nothing would have prevented counsel for the

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 8 of 10
 As is evident from the United States' efforts to revise the Verified Complaint and 5

the Proposed Pretrial Order at this late date, this is not a trivial error. This error is in the key

allegation on which the forfeiture of the Parcel is predicated. Obviously in a civil forfeiture

action, the stakes are high. The law itself requires the verification of the complaint for the

action to be commenced. 

9

United States from discovering its error by carefully reading the Verified Complaint when 5

she took over this case from her precedessor in February of 2008. At that point in time, the

Court had not yet entered its Uniform Scheduling Order, and there would have been

absolutely no reason for the Court to deny the motion at that point. The Court is not satisfied

that United States has made a showing of good cause for the amendment it seeks leave to file.

It appears that United States had at its disposal all the information it needed to amend the

Verified Complaint for months prior to the deadline for amendments, but failed to seek leave

to amend the Verified Complaint prior to that deadline. Indeed, it waited until the dispositive

motions were finished and the trial was weeks away before seeking leave of court for the

proposed amendment. In light of the United States’ lack of diligence in protecting its rights,

its attempt to amend its Verified Complaint nearly two years after the deadline for amending

pleadings set by the scheduling order and only weeks before trial is not supported by good

cause. 

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 9 of 10
10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for

Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 98) filed on April 9, 2010 is DENIED.

DONE this the 14th day of April, 2010.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:07-cv-00694-MEF-CSC Document 103 Filed 04/14/10 Page 10 of 10