F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v

.

J P M O R G A N C H A S E B A

N K A C C O U N T N U M B E R E N D I

N G 8215 I N T H E N A M E O F L A D I S L A O V. S A M A N I E G O , VL : $446,377.36; J P M O R G A N C H A S E B A

N K A C C O U

N T N U M B E R E N D I

N G 7058 I

N T H E N A M E O F M A

N U E L C A S T R

O , V L : $361, 070.25, Defendants
,

L A D I S L A O V. S A M

A N I E G O ; M A N U E L C A S T R

O , Claimants-Appellants. No. 14-16070

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00155-MHB

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Ariz o na Michelle H. B urns, Mag istrate J udg e, Presiding

Arg ued and Submitted May 4, 2016 Pasadena, California

F iled September 1, 2016U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 2

B efore: RAYMOND C. F I SHER, MI L AN D. SMI TH, J R., and J ACQUEL I

NE H. NGUYEN, Circuit J udg es.

O pinion by

J udg e Milan D. Smith, J r.

SUMMARY *

Civil F orf

eiture

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judg ment in favor o f the g overnment in claimants’ challe n ge to the
g overnment’s seiz ure of two J .P. Morg an Chase bank
accounts in a civil asset-forfeiture action, and remanded for further proceeding s.

Claimants L ad i s l a o Samanieg o a nd Manuel Castro opened the two bank accounts which the g overnment seiz ed, based on the g overnment’s belief that the accounts were used in money laundering connected to the illeg al drug trade. The d i s t r ict court held that claimants had not demonstrated a property interest in the seiz e d funds sufficient t o co n fer standing

.

The panel held that claima n t s h ad standing to proceed past summa r y judg ment a n d challeng e the g overnment’s forfeiture action, but did not address the merits of their c laims

or preclude the district court from re-ex amining Article I I I standing at a later date, in lig ht of additional evidence.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 3

The panel held that claimants set forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that they h a d A r ticle I I I standing to challeng e the forfeiture. The panel held that in lig ht of claimants’ self-contradictory claims and shifting leg al
t h eories, the district court d id not err by holding t h at claimants failed to provide indicia of their own ownership o f the funds sufficient to defeat summ a r y judg ment, but claimants demonstrated a po s sessory interest in the funds sufficient to defeat summary judg ment. Specifically
, the panel held that, viewing the evidence in the lig ht m o s t fa v o r a ble to claimants, claimants’ ex planation of their respective possessory i n terests in the seiz ed funds, coupled

w ith supporting evidence in the form of d eclarations, deposition testim o ny , bank records, a nd other evidence, raised a material dispute of fact for trial.

The p a nel also h eld that claimant s provided sufficient evidence of possessory i n t e rests to confer prudential standing

.

COUNSEL

Tay l or Clarke Young (arg u ed) and Robert A. Mandel, Mandel Young PL C, P hoenix
, Ariz ona, for ClaimantsAppellants.

Monica N. Edelstein (arg ued )
, Assistant United States Attorney ; Mark S. Kokanovich, Deputy A p p ellate Chief; J ohn S. L eonardo, U nited States Attorney ; U nited States Attorney ’s Office, Phoenix
, Ariz ona; for Plaintiff-Appellee

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 4

OP INION

M. SMI TH, Circuit J udg e :

L adislao Samanieg o a

nd Manuel Castro (collect i v ely
, Claimants) challeng e the go vernment’s seiz ure of two J .P. Morg an Chase bank accounts in a civil asset-forfeiture action. One account, totaling $446,377.36, was held in the name o f Samanieg o; the other, totaling $ 361,070.25, in the name o f C astro. I n a verified c omplaint seeking forfeiture, t h e g overnment c ontends that Claimants u nlawfully used the
accounts to launder money connected with ill i cit d rug proceeds.

Claimants answered and filed verified claims in response to the complaint, alleg ing t h a t they held ownership a nd
possessory interests in the seiz ed funds sufficient to confer standing

. The p arties f iled cross-motions for s ummary judg ment. 1 The district court entered judg ment in favor of the
g overnment, holding th a t Claimants failed to produce adequate evidence of their Article I I I and prudential standing to contest the forfeiture. W e reverse.

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND JURISDICTION

W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e review summary judg ment determinations de novo. W right v

.

1 T h e g o v ern m en t cap tio n ed its m o tio n as a “ m o tio n to stri k e ” Claim an ts’ an sw e r a n d v erif ied claim s f

o r lack o f stan d in g

. Ho w ev er, i t p resen t ed th e m o tio n as th e eq u iv alen t o f a m o tio n f o r su m m ary j u d g m en t. S ee Fed

. R. Civ

. P

. G(8 )(c)(ii)(B ). On ap p eal, w e rev iew t h e d i s t rict

co u rt’ s d ecisio n as a g ran t o f “ su m m ary j u d g m en t” an d ref

er to it as su ch in o u r o p in io n

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 5

Incline Vill. Gen. Improvement Dist.
, 665 F .3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2011). Summary judg ment is appropriate when, viewing the evide n ce i n the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving party , “ther e i s no g enuine dispute as to any material fact.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp.

v

. Catrett
, 477 U.S. 3 17, 3 22 (1986). A g enuine disp u t e o f material fact ex ists if “ there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving pa r t y for a jury to return a verdict for that party .” Anderson v. Liberty Lob by, Inc
., 477 U .S. 242, 249–50 (1986).

B e cause this appeal concerns a civil forfeiture matter, summary judg ment procedures are construed “in lig ht of the statutory law o f forfeitures
, a n d particularly the procedural requirements set forth therein.” United States v. Curr ency, U.S. $42,500.00
, 283 F .3d 977, 9 79 (9 t h Cir. 2002). F orfeiture proceeding s are g overned b y s tatute and b y the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or M a r i t ime Claims a nd Asset F orfeiture Actions of the F ederal Rules o f C i v il Procedure. S

ee 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A). The relevant rules provide that the g overnment may move to s t r i k e a claim o r

answer for lack of standing

. F ed. R. Civ. P. G(8)(c)(i)(B ). Suc h a m o tion “may b e presented as

. . . a motion to d e t e r mine after a hearing o r by summary judg ment wheth e r the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing b y a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. G(8)(c)(ii)(B ).

F ACTS AND P RIOR P ROCEEDING S

L adislao Samanieg o is the g eneral manag er and minority shareholder of a Mex ican c urrency -ex chang e business called Centro Cambiario Sonorense, formerly Casa de Servicios de California (CSC). Samanieg o and his long time a cquaintance Manuel C a s t r o, both residents o f Mex ico, opened the twoU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 6

bank a ccounts that are the subject o f this action as a result o f CSC’s business relationship with a company called F ruteria W e lton.

F ruteria W e l ton is a Mex ican g rocery company with
stores a long the U.S.-Mex ican border. I n the course o f its daily operations, Fr u t eria W elton acquires larg e amounts o f Mex ican and U .S. currency

. F ruteria W elton, along w ith a related company Distribuidora W elton ( c o l l e c t i v e ly
, W elton), is owned in part by J org e Salas A lvarez

. W elton e nlisted the services of CSC to count, record, and deposit t h e currency that it acquired.

Samanieg o considers Salas A lvarez his compadre
, a term used to denote a close f riend who holds the near-familial
status of a g odfather. 2 Throug h a n ag reement with Salas Alvarez that has lasted seventeen y ears, C S C ( a nd b y

ex tension, Samanieg o) was permitted to u s e the currency it collected for its own purposes, as lon g as W e lton d id not require immediate u se of the funds. CSC and Samanieg o were also entitled to retain any profits arising f rom their temporary

use of the funds. This long standi n g arrang ement was oral in
nature. 3 I n this way , Samanieg o alleg es, he and CSC accrued

2 See Un ited S t

ates v. S a lcid o , No

. CR0 9

- 0 1 8 7 8
, 2 0 1 0 W L 2 0 4 4 4 6 8
, at

* 3 n .4 (D. A riz. Mar. 12
, 2 0 1 0 ) (“ In Mex ican cu ltu re th e p ad

rin o o f a ch ild an d th e ch il d ’s f

a th er ref er to o n e an o th er as co mp a d re , a sig n of
resp ect f o r each o th er as b en ef

acto rs an d p ro tecto rs o f

th e ch i ld .” (citin g Ap p leto n ’s N

ew Cu ya s En g l ish -S

p a nish a n d S

p an ish -En g lish Dictio n ary (1 9 7 2))).

3 Claim an ts su

b stan tiated t

h e ex isten ce an d n atu re o f th is b u s i ne s s relatio n sh ip th ro u g h sw o rn d eclaratio n s f ro m Sam an ieg o an d S a l as A lv arez.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 7

a debt of roug hly o ne million d o l lars to W elton, which required eventual repay

ment.

A f ter Mex ico enacted tig hter restrictions on the m a xi m u m amounts of U.S. c urrency that could be deposited in Mex ican banks, Samanieg o endeavored to help Salas Alvarez transport W e lton’s ex c ess U.S

. c u r rency across the border for deposit in U.S. b anks. Samanieg o claims he did it as a p ersonal favor for Salas Alvarez
, and without compensation, in order to “avoid having [ his] compadre ’s daug hter being robbed along the way .” To better perform this function, Samanieg o enlisted the help o f his long time acquaintance Manuel Castro. Castro

was not formally eng ag ed b y W elton or CSC, b ut, from time
to time, Samanieg o would pay Castro one hundred d ollars for his help in making deposits into the two seiz ed accounts.

On May 31, 2011, Samanieg o and Castro visited a Chase branch in A riz ona to o pen a personal bank account held in Castro’s name. On J une 7, 2011, Samanieg o a l s o opened a personal Chase bank account under his own name i n w h i c h both he a n d C astro deposited ex cess funds from W elton. Samanieg o announced that the purpose of the bank accounts

was to “accumulate all the money th a t [ h e ] owe[ d ] to J org e Salas in order to pay him.” C a s t ro echoed that the money in the accounts belong ed to W e lton, and was being set aside to
repay a d ebt to W elton. Collectively
, these two bank accounts are the subject of the current forfeiture action.

On A ug ust 22, 2011, the g overnment seiz ed the two bank
accounts opened by Claimants
, b a s ed on the belief that the
accounts were used in money laundering connecte d to the illeg al drug trade. Th e go v ernment then filed a verified

co m plaint for forfeiture o f the two accounts. Claimants responded by f

iling an answer and verified claims. F ollowingU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 8

a round of discovery a

nd b riefing
, the g overnment moved for

summar y judg ment. 4 The district court g ranted the
g overnment’s motion
, holding that Claimants had not demonstrated a property interest in the seiz ed funds sufficient
to confer standing

. Claimants filed a motion for reconsideration. which the district court denied. 5 This timely appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. Claim ants’ Article III Standing

To satisfy constitutional standing requirements under Article I I I
, a claimant contestin g the g overnment’s civil forfeiture action must show “sufficient interest in the property to create a ca s e or controversy .” United States v. R e al Prop. Located at 4 75 Martin Lane
, 545 F .3d 1 1 3 4
, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted); see Luj a n v. Defenders of W ildlife
, 5 04 U.S. 555, 5 60–61 (1992). T h i s showing need only c onstitute “a colorable interest” i n t h e seiz e d f unds,
g eneral l y throug h the d emonstration of an ownership o r possessory interest in the p r o p erty

. United States v

. $133,420.00 in U

.S. Currency
, 6 72 F .3d 629, 637 ( 9 th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). “[ A] n owne r o r p ossessor of property that h as been seiz ed necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by the return of the

4 As n o ted earlier, su

p ra n o te 1
, th e g o v ern m en t sty l ed i t s m o tio n f or

su m m ary j u d g m en t as a “ m o tio n to strik e” Claim an ts’ an sw er an d v erif ied claim s f or lack o f stan d in g

. S

ee Fed . R. Civ . P . (G)(8 )(C)(ii)(B ).

5 B ecau se w e rev erse t

h e j u d g m e n t , w e d o n o t d w ell o n Claim an ts’ ch allen g e to th e d en ial o f th eir m o tio n

f or reco n sid eratio n

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 9

seiz ed property .” Id

. at 638 ( quoting United S tates v

. $515,060.42 , 152 F .3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 1998)).

The precise “manner and deg ree of evidence required” to d e monstrate standing will v ary according to the stag e o f litig ation. Id. (quoting Lujan
, 504 U.S. at 561). A claimant at the summary judg ment p hase must offer supporting evidence. Id. This evidence may take the form of affidavits a l l e g ing
sp e c i fic facts, coupled with the claimant’s possession of the property when it was seiz e d. Id. a t 639. Althoug h a claimant need not prove standing by a preponderance of the evidence
to survive summary judg ment, a court must determine that “a fair-minded jury could return a ver d i c t for [ the claimant] on the e vidence presented.” Liberty Lobby
, 477 U.S. at 252. That is, the evidence set forth must be su f f i c ient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that th e claimant has standing to challeng e the forfeiture. See F ed. R. Civ. P. G(8)(c)(ii)(B ).

A. Ow nership Interest

A claimant’s “unequivocal” assertion of ownership in the seiz ed propert y , along w ith phy sical possession of the property a t the time of seiz ure, can overc ome the summary judg ment hurdle. $133,420 in U.S. Currency
, 672 F .3d at 639. However, Claimants’ o w nership claims h ave been repeatedly controverted throug h t h eir own deposition testimony a nd

o t h e r record evidence. The d istrict court did not err when i t found Claimants’ assertions of ownership to be no more than back-pedaling
, “late-in-the-day declarations” insufficient to create a g enuine dispute as to the ownership of the funds.

At various t i m es, Claimants have asserted conflicting interests in the seiz ed funds. F or ex a m p l e, Claimants statedU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 10

in their verified claims that the funds “belong [ ed] to them.” 6 During h is d e p o s i t i o n , however, Samanieg o declared that “the
money that was seiz ed d oesn’t belong to us. I t belong s to F ruteria and Distribuidora W elton, and we need to p a y it back.” Castro’s deposition tes t i m o n y c onfirmed that the funds “belong ed” to W elton. When asked why they did not open the
accounts in W elton’s name, Samanieg o r e sponded that “it

was our f u ll intention to c h ang e the names on both accounts . . . [ b] ecause the money

belong ed to them.”

The r ecord reveals other instances when Claimants disavowed leg al ownership. I n their answers to the forfeiture complaint, Claimants ex pressly “ ad m it[ ted] that Samanieg o and Castro transported U .S. dolla r s belong ing to F ruteria W e lton or Distribuidora W elton into the United States.” Moreover, in the Currency o r M onetary I nstrument Reports that Samanieg o filed w ith U .S. o fficials a t t h e border, he represented that he was transporting the c urrency on behalf o f W e lton or, at times, CSC.

I n a subsequent dec l a r ation, Samanieg o r easserted his ownership interest in the funds. H e claimed that “[ b] ecause

. . . the Seiz ed F unds were sourced from W e l t o n a n d would

. . . eventually be r epaid to Welton, [ he] at times referred to them a s W elton funds.

. . . [ S] uch a characteriz ation does not mean—and has n ever meant—that [he an d ] CSC lacked an ownership a

nd possessory i n terest in the funds.” T o

6 Verif icatio n , in th is co n tex t, m e a n s t h at Claim an t s h av e su b m i tted

sw o rn p lead in g s in su

p p o rt o f th eir claim s, an d sp ecif i e d t h e p ro p erty claim ed an d t

h e n atu re o f th eir in terest i n th e p ro p erty

. S ee Fed

. R. Civ

. P

. G(5 )(a)(i). T h i s p ro ced u ral req u ire m en t s erv es to p ro tect ag ain st th e p ro lif eratio n o f f

alse claim s in asset- f

o rf eitu re p ro ceed in g s. S

ee S tef an D. Casella, Asset Fo rfeitu re La w in th e Un ited S ta tes § 7

- 1 3 (c), at 3 13 (2 d ed

. 2 0 1 3 ).U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 11

complicate matters, Samanieg o, in h is declarations, adopted the shorthan d o f “CSC” to r efer collectively to both himself and CSC.

A claimant must “make clear whether he is asserting a possessory interest, an owne r s h i p interest, or something else.” Id. a t 640 (quotation marks omitted) (holding that a claimant’s bare alleg ation of “ownership and/or a possessory in t e r e s t” was lacking specificity and insufficient to survive
summary judg ment); cf. Kennedy v

. Allied Mut. I ns. C o

. , 952 F .2d 262, 266–67 (9th Cir. 1 991) (discounting a “sham” affidav i t w h en the district court found that it “flatly contradicts earlier testimony in an attempt to ‘create’ an issue of fact a nd avoid summary judg ment”). I n lig ht of Claimants’ self-contradictory c l a ims and jumble of shifting leg al theories—alternatively alleg in g o wnership on the part o f W e lton or CSC or Claimants—the district court did n ot err b y holding that Claimants failed to provide indicia of their o wn ownership of the funds sufficient to d e feat summary judg ment.

B. P ossessory Interest

However, Claimants may still demonstrate a p os s e s sory interest in the funds that is short of o wnership. A possessory interest involves “[ t] he fact of having or holding property in one’s power; the ex er c i se of dominion over property

. ” Possession , B lack’s L a

w Dictionary ( 10th ed. 2014). Unlike

an ownership interest, a p ossessory interest arises even if the claimant is merely “holding t h e i t e m for a friend” w ho has temporarily transferred control of the item to the claimant for safekeeping

. United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F

. 3d 1051, 1058 ( 9th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other g rounds as stated in United States v. $80,180.00 in U .S.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 12

C u r r e n cy , 303 F .3d 1 182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002). I f the ite m

were seiz e d, the claimant w ould suffer injury to that
possessory

interest. Id.

I n f orfeiture proceeding s, we have a c knowledg ed that the risk of false claims “ requir[ es] courts to demand more than conclusory or hears a y a l l e g ations o f some ‘ interest’ in the forfeited property .” United States v. $100,348.00 in U .S. Currency
, 354 F

. 3d 1110, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2004) ( quotation marks and alteration omitted). Neither n aked possession nor bare title, standing alone, w i l l d o

. Rather, a claimant must offer some additio nal e x planation concerning his “lawful
possessory interest in the money seiz ed.” 7 $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency
, 6 72 F

. 3d a t 6 39 ( quoting U nited States v

. $321,470.00 , 874 F .2d 298, 3 03 (5th Cir. 1989)). Therefore,
at the summary judg ment phase, clai m a n t s alleg ing a possessory

interest must set forth supporting evidence along with some ex planation of how they came into possession o f the seiz ed property

. I

d

.

7 B y “ law f u l p o ssesso ry

in terest,” w e d o n o t m ean th at a claim an t m u st p ro v e th at h is p o s sessio n

is law f u l, w h i ch is an i n q u iry b etter lef t f o r th e

m erits stag e o f an asset- f o rf eitu re actio n

. S

ee U n i t e d S ta tes v. Ho o

p er , 2 2 9 F.3 d 81 8
, 82 0 n

. 4 (9 t h Cir. 2 00 0 ); Un ited S ta tes v. Fu nd s in th e Amo u nt of $ 23 9 ,4 0 0
, 7 95 F.3 d 6 39
, 6 4 7 (7 th Cir. 2 0 1 5 ). In stead
, a claim an t m

u st articu late an in terest i n t h e p ro p erty th at is reco g n ized b y law

. T h i s co m

p o rts w ith th e p rin cip le th at, f o r stan d in g in q u i r i e s , th e g u id in g q u estio n is w

h eth er th e claim an t w ou ld b e in j u red th ro u g h t h e seizu re o f th e p ro p erty , ev en assu m in g a rg u en d

o th at th e p ro p erty w as

w ro n g f u lly seized

. S

ee Fu n d s in t h e Amo u n t o

f $ 23 9 ,4 0 0
, 7 9 5 F.3 d at 6 45 ; Un ited S ta tes v. Ca m b io Exa cto , S .A
., 16 6 F.3 d 5 2 2
, 5 2 7 (2 d Cir. 19 9 9 ); Un ited S t a tes v. On e-S ixth S

ha re o f J a m es J. Bu lg er in All Presen t & Fu tu re Pro ceed

s of Ma ss Millio n s Lo ttery Ticket No

. M2 4 6 2 3 3
, 32 6 F.3 d 3 6 , 4 1 (1 st Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ Co u rts sh ou ld n o t

. . . co n f

late th e co n stitu

tio n al
stan d in g in q u i ry

w ith th e m erits d eterm in atio n

th at co m es later.”).U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 13

Viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favor a b l e t o Claimants, w e hold that Claimants’ ex planation of their respect i v e possessory interests in the seiz ed funds, coupled with supporting evidence i n the form of declarations, dep o s i t i on testimony
, bank records, and o ther evidence, raises a material dispute of fact for trial.

1. Sam aniego’s P ossessory Interest

The district court failed to d raw a ll reasonable inferences in favor o f Samanieg o when it concluded that only CSC, a nd
not Samanieg o, h eld a property interest in t h e funds. I n this
case, it is fair to i n f

er from the e v idence that CSC a nd Samanieg o re t a ined a joint interest in the funds. Under this reading
, Samanieg o h as presented s u fficient evidence of a possessory interest in the bank account bearing his name to defeat summary

judg ment.

Here, the relevant evidence primarily took the form o f declarations from Samanieg o and Salas Alvarez
, a p art owner and manag er of W elton. Samanieg o declare d that the seiz ed funds were the proceeds of Welton business activities. S amanieg o e x plained that, for nearly two decades, h e a n d C SC had c ollected W e lton proceeds and arrang ed for the i r d e p o sit and safekeeping

. Salas Alvarez corroborated this

ex p lanation of how the seiz ed funds came into Samanieg o’s possession. Salas Alvarez averr ed that “ [ w] hen the a rmored

ca r companies deliver these proceeds to CSC [ a nd Samanieg o]
, [ they ] take[ ] title to, possession, and compl e te control of the proceeds.”

U n d er these circumstances, a reasonable jury could f i n d
t hat Samanieg o has presented adequate evidence, a nd

ex p lanation, of his possessory interest in the funds to conferU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 14

Article I I I standing . Moreover, Samanieg o presented f urther evidence o f a “concrete a

nd particulariz ed” injury
, see Lujan
, 504 U.S. a t 560, by repeatedly declaring that h e was liable for the balance on the accounts. As Salas Alvarez acknowledg ed, CSC and Samanieg o r emained “oblig ated to repay to Welton the amount of these proceeds at a later date.”

2. Castro’s P ossessory Interest

Similarly
, w e conclude that Castro has set forth sufficient evidence of a possessory interest in the bank account b earing his name to survive summary judg ment. L ike S a manieg o, Castro was the so l e i n dividual with sig natory authority over the account in his o wn name. A lthoug h h e ag reed to manag e the funds at Samanieg o’s direction, only Castro w as ab l e to access the funds in the account. I n a ddition, Castro was able
to identify the source and nature of the funds, ex plaining they

were the proceeds of W elton business e s

. Castro presented evidence that the funds c ame into his poss e s sion throug h an

ar r ang ement with Samanieg o , whereby Castro assumed safekeeping and control o f the funds o n Samanieg o’s behalf. Castro h a s therefore offered ade q u a te evidence a nd

ex p lanation to disting uish his possessory interest from that o f

a simple “ unknowing custodian,” $191, 9 1 0 .00 in U .S. Currency
, 16 F .3d a t 1058 ( quotation marks omitted). According ly
, we conclude he has standing to c h alleng e the forfeiture of the bank account in his name.

II. P rudential Standing

I n addition to Article I I I standing
, a claimant must satisfy the requirements of prudential standing

. See United States v

. Lazarenko
, 476 F .3d 642, 649–50 (9th Cir. 2006). Prudential standing c o n s ists of “the g eneral prohibition on a litig ant’sU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 15

raising another person’s leg al rig hts, the rule barring adjudication of g eneraliz ed g r ievances more appropriately addressed in represen

t a t i v e b r a n c hes, and the requirement that

a plaintiff’s complaint f al l within the z o ne of interests protected by the law invoked.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The prudential-standing addendum to the Article I I I standing inquiry has fallen into disfavor in recent y ears. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc
., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014). T o the e x tent it continues to apply
, we conclude that the essential requirements are satisfied here.

F irst, Claimants d o not ex clusively “r a is[ e] another
p e r s o n’s leg al rig hts.” Lazarenko
, at 4 76 F .3d at 6 49. They

are not only the titleholders of the accounts in q uestion, but have a rticulated colo ra b le possessory interests in the seiz ed
accounts in their own rig ht. F or similar reasons, neither do Claimants raise “g eneraliz ed g rievances m o r e appropriately addressed in r epresentative branches.” Id

. at 6 50. Rather, the locus of their injury is the seiz ure of the accounts. Therefore, the seiz ure constitutes an injury that is redre s s a b l e throug h the return of the property

.

F inally
, Claimants’ challeng e s “fal l [ ] within the class o f plaintiffs w hom Cong ress has authoriz ed to” assert a claim in

a civil f orfeiture action. Lexmark
, 134 S. Ct. at 1 387. I t is precisely those claimants whose property i n t erests a re impaired by g overnme n t seiz ure that Cong ress meant to protect throug h the civil asset-forfeiture laws. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A ),(C). As a result, Claimants have provided sufficient evide n c e of a possessory interest to confer prudential standing

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. S A M A N I E G O 16

CONCLUSION

W e hold that Samanieg o and Castro have standing t o proceed pas t summary judg ment and challeng e the
g overnment’s forfeiture action. However, we do not address the merits of their claims o r preclude the district cour t f r o m

re-ex amining Article I I I standing at a later da t e, in lig ht o f additi o n al evidence. According ly
, we REVERSE the judg ment o f the district c ourt, and REMAND for f urther proceeding s.