### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20541 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. M IN H H U Y N H , a ls o k n o w n a s J e ff H u y n h ; N U H U YN H , a l s o kno w n a s Ci ndyH uyn h C l ai m an t s- A pp el l an t s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- NU “ Ci n d y” HUY NH; MI NH “J e f f ” HUY NH

P l a i n tiffs-A p p ell a n ts v. FERD I N AN D “And y” LARGE , ET AL. D efen d a n ts

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V
- 399 U SD C N o. 4: 05- C V
- 1155 B e fo r e R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20541

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exceptunder the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 P E R C U R IA M: * P la in t if fs -A p p e ll a n t s N u a n dM in h H u y n h a p p e a l t h e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s j u d g m e n t o n a t t o r n e y s ’ fe e s a n d c o s t s e n t e r e d i n t wo c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s : o ne brou gh tby P l ai n t i f

fs to seta si de the G overnm en t ’ s adm i n i st rat ive f orf ei t u re of t hei rj ew elr y, and t he o t heri ni t i at ed byt he G ove r nm ent se ek i n g j udi c i al f orf ei t u re of

P l ai n t i f

fs’veh i cl e. R evi ew i n g t h e fee aw ard f or abu se of

di scr et i on a n dth e con cl u sion s of l a w u n d erlyingit de no vo , seeNavigan tCon sult i ng, I n c. v. Wi lki n son , 5 08 F. 3d2 77, 2 97 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) , w e AFF I RM f o rt he f o l l o w i ng reasons: 1 . W e a g r e e w ith th e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e th a t P la in tiffs ’s u c c e s s o n th e ircla im u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 3 (e ) to s e t a s id e th e a d m in is tr a tiv e fo r fe itu r e o f c e r ta in je w e lr yfo rla c ko f

s u f f i c ie n t n o tic e d o e s n o t p e r m it t h e re c o v e r yo f r e a s o n a b le atto rn e y s’ fee s a v a il a b le to asu b sta n tia llyp re v a ilin gp a rtyu n d e r th e C ivil A ss et For fe i t ur e Ref

o r m Ac to f 20 00 (“ CA FR A” ) , 28 U . S. C. § 24 65 (b) ( 1) . Bec aus e t he r e que s t e d f

e e a w ar d i m pli c at e s t he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s s o ve r e i gn i m m uni t y, a ny w aiver of

i m m u n i t y m u stbe “ u n eq u ivoca l l y expre sse d , w i t h al lun cert ai n t i es b ein g reso lve dinfav or of th e [G ]ove rn m en t. ” B o eh m s v . C ro w ell , 139 F. 3d 452, 463 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) ( em ph asi s i n o rig in al) . M oreover, t h e “A m eri can R u l e” g e n era l l y p reclu d es fee-sh i ft i n g a b sen t “ expres s s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o t he con trary . ” I

d. B yits p la inte r m s , C A F R A ’ s fe e -s h i f t in gp r o v is io n a p p lie s o n ly t o civi lp roceedi n gs “ to fo rfe it property, ” t h at i s, civi l f orf ei t u re act i on s i n i t i ated b yth e G o v e r n m e n t . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 5 (b )(1 ) (e m p h a s is a d d e d). C f . Carv aj alv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 521 F . 3d 124 2, 124 7 ( 9th C i r. 200 8) ( exp l ai n i n g t h at th e parall el p r o v is io n o f C A F R Ap r o v id in gfo rp a y m e n t o f in te r e s t, § 2 4 6 5 (b )(1 )(C ), “is t r i gg e r e d o n lyw he n t he g o ve r nm e nti ns t i t ut e s c ivilf o r fe i t ur e pr o c e e di ngs ” a ndN o. 08- 20541

3 t h e party s eeking fees “ sub st an t i al l y preva i l s” ( em pha s i s in o ri gi n al) ) . Plai n t i f fs’ cl ai m , i n contr ast, seeks t o s e tas i de a f o r fe i t ur e t hatha s a l r e ad y o c c ur r e d. 18 U . S . C . § 983 ( e) . F ar fr om u n equ ivocal l y an d exp ress l y au t h ori zi n g P l ai n t i f fs’ fe e re q u e s t, th e s ta tu to r yla n g u a g e o f § 2 4 6 5 (b )(1 ) c le a r lyd o e s n o t a p p lyto th e ir a c tio n p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 3 (e ). 2. Contr ar y t o Pl ai nt i f fs’as se r t i on, adher enc e t o the pl ai n t extof § 2465(b) ( 1) d oe s n ot crea te ab su rdresu l ts. U n l i k e a su cces sful de fen se a ga i n st a G ove r nm ent - i ni t i ated j udi c i alf or feit ure ac t i on, a c l ai m t o s etas i de an ad m i n i str a tiv e for feitu re n e ith e r r e so lve s th e su b sta n tive m erit s of th e f orf eit u re n o rp r e v e n ts th e G o v e r n m e n t fr o m s e iz in gth e p r o p e r tya g a in . S ee 1 8 U . S . C. § 9 83( e) ( 1) (A) & ( B ) (l i m i t i ng t he gr ou n d s fo rs et t i ng as i de adm i ni st r at ive f orf ei t u re t o i n st an ces w h ere th e governm en tfai l ed r eason ably t o provi de n ot i ce a n dth e m o v in gp a r tyn e ith e rk n e w n o rh a dre a s o n to k n o w o f th e s e iz u r e w ith in su ff i ci en t t i m e to fil e acl a i m ); § 98 3 (e) (2)(A) (no ti n g t h e exclu sive rem ed y is t o setasi de the f

orf ei t u re w i t h ou tprej u di ce to the govern m en t ’ s c om m en cem en tof afo r fe itu r e p r o c e e d in g); Mesa V alderram a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 417 F. 3d 1189, 1196 ( 11th C i r. 200 5) ( agreei n g w i t h the gov ernm en tt h at th e com pl ai n an t ’ s m erit sbasedchal l en ge t o t h e f orf ei t u re c an onl y be resolvedi n a civi lj u di ci alf orf ei t u re pro ce e d in g , si n ce c h al l en ges un der § 983(e) are li m i t ed to “ t h e process of f orf ei t u re” ) . Th i s di st i n ct i on betw een t h e perm an en ce an d d egree of reli ef obtai n ed l ogi cal l y sup ports a cor respond in gdi f ference i n t h e avail abili t y of a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s u n d e rC A F R A . 3 . T h e m a gistrate jud ge also corre ctly rej ected P l a i n tiffs’req u es t p u r s u a n t t o § 2 4 6 5 f o ra t t o r n e y s ’fe e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c iv i la c t i o n t o fo r fe i tt h e i rBM W sport s- u t i l i t y veh i cl e, a cl ai m t h at th e G overnm en tvol u n t aril y di sm i ssed w i th ou t prej u d i ce. T h e j u d ge ’ s f i n d i n g o f d efi ci en t no ti ce w i thresp ect to P la in tiffs ’je w e lr yd idn o t c o n s tit u te afin d in gth a t t h e n o tic e a s to th e v e h ic le w a s a ls o in s u ffic ie n t, b e c a u s e th e la tt e ris s u e w a s n o t a c tu a llyo rn e c e s s a r i lyN o. 08- 20541

4 d e c id e dd u e to th e G o v e r n m e n t’s d is m is s a l o f th e a c tio n a n dr e tu r n o f th e v e h ic le to P la in tiffs . See, e . g. , A l ph a/ O m ega Ins. S ervs . , I n c. v. Prud enti al Ins. Co. of A m. , 272 F . 3d276 , 279 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) ( exp l ai n i n g t h at l aw of t h e case ap pl i es on l y t o i ssu e s “ t h at w ere act u al l y deci ded ” or w ere “ deci dedby n ecess ary im p lic a tio n ” (in te r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m itt e d)); In reG ober , 100 F. 3d 1195, 120 0 n . 2 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) ( defi n i n g col l ater al est opp el as barri n g “ rel i t i gati on of i ssues t h at w ere act u al l y l i t i gated an d d eci dedin a previ ou s act i on ” ) . N or does t h e G overnm en t ’ s di sm i ssal w i t h ou t prej u di ce bestow preva i l i n g pa rt y st atus on P la in tiffs b e c a u s e it e ffe c te dn o “c h a n g e inth e le g a l re la tio n s h ip o f th e p a r tie s .” B u ckh an n on B d . & Care Hom e, I n c. v. W. V

a. D ep’ tof Heal t h & Hu m an R es. , 532 U .S . 5 9 8 , 6 0 5 , 1 2 1 S . C t. 1 8 3 5 , 1 8 4 0 (2 0 0 1 ); s e eals o, e . g. , RFR I nd u s. , I nc. v. Century Steps, I

n c. , 477 F. 3d 1348, 1353 ( Fed. C i r . 2007) (r eas oni ng t hat vo l unt ary di sm i s s alt hatl e av e s t he pl ai nt i f f f r e e t o r e f

i l e hi s c l ai m e f

fe c t s no c h a n g e inth e p a r tie s ’le g a lr e l a t i o n s h ip ). T h e re tu r n o f P la in tiffs ’ca rd id n ot h i n g t o preven tt h e G overnm en tf rom sei zi n g i tagain. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e court en t ered no order w i t h res pect t o t h e car ad dressi n g t h e m erit s of t h e f orf ei t u re c l ai m pr i ort o it s vol untary di sm i ss al . W i t houtt he “ nec es sa r y j udi c i al i m pr i m at ur , ” Pl ai nt i f fs c anno te s t ab l i s h pr e va i l i ng pa r t y s t a t u s a s t o t hi s a c t i o n. B u ckh an n on , 5 3 2 U .S . a t 6 0 5 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 8 4 0 (em p h a sis re m o v e d). 4 . W e a l so fi n dn o a b u se o f d i scre ti on i n the am ou n t of attorn ey s’fee s an dcosts aw arded t o P l ai n t i f

fs f or p revai l i n g on theircl ai m rel ated to t h e j ew el ry un der t he E qualA c c es s t o J ust i c e Act , 28 U . S. C . § 2412( d) ( 1) (A) and 28 U . S. C . § 1920. U nderw ell
- es t abl i she d l aw , t he di st r i c tc our thad no j uri sdi c t i on t o r es olve c hall e nge s t o se i z ur e o f t he j e w e l r y e xc e ptf

o rit s c o m pli anc e w i t h pr o c e dur ala nd d u e p r o c e s s re q u ir e m e n ts . Se eBai leyv . Uni t e d St at es , 5 0 8 F . 3d 736, 738–39 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (expl ai n i n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u ri sdi ct i on at t h i s j u n ct u re is lim ite dto “w h e th e rth e fo r fe itu r e co m p o r te dw ith co n s tit u tio n a l d u e proc ess gua r ant e e s , ” w hi c h, i n t ur n, r e quir e no t i c e r e as o nab l y c al c ul at e d t o a ppr i s e t heN o. 08- 20541

5 c om pl ai nant of

t he f or feit ure ac t i on and an oppo r t u n i t y t o o bj ec t(i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d) (e m p h a s is a d d e d)); Unit edSt at e s v. S ch in n ell , 80 F . 3d106 4, 106 9 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (l i m i t i n g j u ri sdi ct i on to r evi ew of co m p li a n ce w ith “p ro ce d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts or to co m p o rt w ith d u e p ro ce ss ”). Thus , fe e s i nc ur r e d b y Pl ai nt i f fs f o ra t t ac ki ng t he co ns t i t ut i o nali t y o f t he f o r fe i t ur e s t at ut e s a s aw ho l e und e rt he Appr o pr i at i o ns C l au se a nd the separati on - of

- p o w e rs doctr i n e, over w h i ch the di st ri ctcourtcl earl y l acked j u ri sd i cti on , w ere ap p rop ri a tel y exc l u d ed . A s f or P l a i n tiffs’en titl em en t t o cos ts associ ated w i t h t h e dep osit i on of a w i t n ess, t h ei r fai l u re af f i rm ativel y t o request t hos e e xpens es i n t hei ri ni t i alm ot i on be l ow w aives any r i ghtt o r ec ove r y. A F F IR M E D .