F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 24 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1054 3
D. C. Docket N o. 04-20518 CV -W MH VIA MAT INTERNATIONAL SOUTH AMERICA LTD., Pl ai nti ff -A ppe lla nt,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida (A pr il 24, 200 6) Before DU BIN A a nd KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, ST ROM *, D istrict Judg e. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:

______________________ *Honora ble Ly le E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Ne braska , sitti ng by desig nation.2

A ppe lla nt a ir

c ar ri er , V iaMat I nte rn at ion al S outh A m eric a L td. ( “ V ia Mat”), broughtthis action agains t the United States see king the return of m onetary ins trum en ts tha t w er e se iz edf ro m it s po sse ssi on b y the U nit edS ta te s B ur eau of Cu sto m s a nd B or de r Pr ote ct ion ( “ Cu sto m s” ). C ust om s se ttl eda dmini str at ive ly
w ith the ow ne r of

the ins trum en ts tha t V iaMat w as tr an sportin g, but didnot respond to Via

Mat’ s tim ely dem and for institut ion of a j udicial forfeiture proceeding to determine the legality of the underly ing seizure. T he district court granted the Government’ s Motion to Dismiss, holdin g that Via Ma t lacked statut or y sta ndi ng a nd tha t the m atte r w as r en de re d m oot byvirtue of

Cu sto m s’
se ttl emen t w ith the ow ne r of the ins trum en ts. V iaMat appe al s, a nd, f or the
reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er. I. BACKGROUND In or a bo utJu ly 200 3, Gal es Cas a Cam bi ari a d/b /aLesp an (“ Lesp an ”), a
cu rr en cye xc ha nge hou se in Mon te vid eo , U ru gua y , c ontra ct edw ith P ro se gur T ra nspo rt ad or a de Cauda le s, S
. A
. , w ho i n tu rn hir edV iaMat t o tr an sport a nd ins ur e a shi pm en t of

ba nk n ote s va lue d a t $2 , 757, 975 fr om Mo nte vid eo to L o n d o n , E n g l a n d , v i aM i a mi , F l o r i d a . Wh e n t h e n o t e s arr i v e d i n M i a mi , C u s t o ms agents seized them

pursuant to 31 U. S. C. § 531 7(c)( 2) based on Via Ma t’ s failureSe c tio n 5 31 6 r e qu ir e s th at a pe rs on fi le F orm 47 90 wh e n tr a ns po rting mon e tary ins trume nts 1 of an amount g reater than $10,000 to the United States from a fore ign c ountry . Via Mat a rg ues that it w a s n ot i n v iol atio n o f 3 1 U .S. C. § 53 16 be c aus e it w a s n ot t rans po rting themon e tary

ins trume nts “to” the U nited States, because Miami was not the final destination; inst ead, it wa s transporting the property “throug h” the United States to another c ountry . Thus, Via Mat a rgues the se izure was unlawfu l
. T he propriety

of the initial seizure is not curre ntly befor e this court, howe ver, and we express no opinion on the merits of Via Mat’s a rg ument on this iss ue.

“ CA F RA ” re fe rs to theCiv il A sse ts F orfe itu reRe fo rm Ac t. 2 “Ea rly Release ” is a pro ce d u re use d by Customs in conjunction with the elec tive 3 administrative resolution proce ss wher eby Customs returns all of the seized prope rty , less an amount it determines to be the likely maxi mum penalty , pending a fina l administrative decision.

3 to file Custom s Form

4790 as required by31 U. S. C. § 531 6. It is uncontested that 1 L es pa n is the true ow ne r of the se not es , a nd the G ove rn m en t do es not a lle ge the
m on et ary in st ru m en ts are t he pro ceed s o f dr ug de al in g o r ot he r cri min al act iv it y . Cu sto m s no tif

ie d bo th V iaMat a nd L es pa n of the se iz ur e an d in vit edboth of the m to fi le a n E le ct ion of

P ro ce ed ing s C A FR A F or m , w hic h gi ve s c la im an ts 2 th e ch oi ce t o p ro ceed wit h aco nt es t o f th e se iz ur e ad min is tra ti ve ly or jud ic ia ll y . Bo th L es pa n a nd V iaMat r es pond edto the not ic e an d e ac h f ile d ac la im

to the
se iz eda sse ts, aCA FR A F or m that e le ct edto pr oc ee d a dmini str at ive ly , a nd a Pe tit ion f or E ar lyRe le as e. C ust om s in fo rmedV iaMat tha t i t w oul d gr an t the 3 Pe tit ion f or E ar lyRe le as e co nti nge nt u pon: ( 1) Cu sto m s r et ai nin g $5 00, 000 pe ndi ng the out co m e of

the a dmini str at ive pr oc es s, ( 2) the e xe cu tio n of ahol d harmle ss a gr ee m en t, a nd ( 3) the e xe cu tio n of a n a gr ee m en t c ont ai nin g aw ai ve r of the r igh t t o j udi ci al r ev ie w of Cu sto m s’ f

ina l a dmini str at ive de te rm ina tio n. V iaL e sp a n s ou g ht t o re c ov e r fr om Via Mat th e a mou nt r e taine d b y Cus tom s andthede c re a se 4 in value of thenotes while they wer e held by

Customs , plus other costs. 4 Ma t, how ev er , w as unw ill ing to w ai ve it s r igh t t o j udi ci al r ev ie w of the pr oc ee din gs b ec au se it

w ish edto co nte st the le ga lit y of the se iz ur e, a nd, ad dit ion al ly , be cause L es pa n w oul d no t dr op a n a ct ion it ha d in iti at eda ga ins t V ia Mat in Uruguay for dam ages arising from the seizure. A ccordingly , V ia Mat

4
re j ec te d C ust om s’ pr opos al in w ri tin g a nd r eq ue ste d th at the m atte r be r ef

er re d f or jud ic ia l fo rfei tu re. A lth ough Cu sto m s in ad ve rt en tlyf ai le d to not if

y L es pa n of

the e ar lyr el ea se offer , L espan learned of the off er a nd Via Mat’ s rej ection thereto and noti fied Cu st om s t ha t i t wo ul d a gr ee t o t he ter m s an d p ro ceed ad min is tra ti ve ly. Consequent ly , C ustom s release d the funds, less $50 0,000, to Le span and began ad mini str at ive pr oc ee din gs t o di spos e of the m atte r. B ef

or e the a dmini str at ive pr oc ee din gs c onc lud ed , L es pa n a nd V iaMat r es olv edthe U ru gua y a ct ion w ith a se ttl emen t a gr ee m en t w he re by V iaMat a gr ee d to r ei m bur se L es pa n f

or the $500 , 000 re ta ine d byCu sto m s, plu s othe r co sts . I n r etur n, L es pa n a gr ee d to forw ard to Via

Mat anym oney eventually rec overed from Custom s, and to suppo rt V iaMat i n a ny c la im

it migh t bring a ga ins t C ust om s. U lti m at el y , on M ay20, 2004 , Cu sto m s is sue d it s f ina l a dmini str at ive de ci sio n a nd r el ea se d $4 20, 000 to5

L es pa n, r et ai nin g $8 0, 000 as pa y m en t i n li eu of f or fe itu re of

the pr ope rt y ini tia lly
se iz ed
. L es pa n th en turne d ov er thi s $4 20, 000 to V iaMat. T he iss ue c urre ntl y be fo re thi s c ourt aro se w he n th e G ove rn m en t, f oll ow ing Via Mat’ s request for j udicial forfeiture, failed to institu te j udicial forfeiture p r o c e e d i n g s w i th i n 9 0 d a ys a s r e q u i r e d b y 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 9 8 3
. I n s t e a d , C u s t o ms co nti nue d w ith the a dmini str at ive pr oc es s, de al ing onl y w ith L es pa n. T he fo rf ei tur e pr oc ed ur e m an da te d in thi s si tua tio n is se t f orth i n 18 U . S. C. § 98 3( a) , in
re le va nt p art: (2)(A ) A ny person claiming prop ertyseized in a nonjudicial civil forfe iture pr oc ee din g un de r a ci vil f or fe itu re statut e m ayf

ile ac la im

w ith the appropriate official a fter the se izure.

. . . (3 )( A ) N ot l at er

tha n 90 da y s a ft er

ac la im ha s be en f

ile d, the G ove rn m en t sha ll fi le ac om

pla int f or f or fe itu re in the m an ne r se t f orth i n th e Supplem ental Rules for Ce rtain Admiralty and Maritim e Claim s or return th e p ro pe rty pen di ng th e fi li ng of aco m pl ai nt. . . . (B ) If the G ove rn m en t do es not

– (i) f ile a com plaint for forfe iture or re turn the property , in ac cordance w ith sub para gr ap h ( A )
. . . the G ove rn m en t sh al l pr om ptl y r el ea se the property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney G en er al , a nd m aynot

take a ny f

urthe r ac tio n to e ff

ec t the c ivi l forfe iture of such property in connection with the underly ing offense.

. . . (4)(A ) In anycase in w hich the Governm ent files in the appropriate United St at es dis tr ic t c ourt a

c om pla int f or f or fe itu re of

pr ope rt y , a ny pe rs on claiming an int erest in the seized propertym ay file a claim asserting such person’ s interest in the property in the m anner set forth in the Supplem ental Ru le s fo r Cer ta in Admira lt y an d M ari ti m e Cl ai m s . . . .6

If the G ove rn m en t i nst itu te s aj udi ci al f or fe itu re pr oc ee din g byf ili ng a c la im f or fo rf ei tur e of pr ope rt yin the dis tr ic t c ourt, the S uppl emen ta l R ule s f or Ce rt ai n Admira lt y an d M ari ti m e Cl ai m s [h erei na fte r th e Su pp le m en ta l Ru le s] are i nv ok ed
. Su ppl emen ta l R ule C pr ovi de s, in pe rt ine nt p art: (6)(a ) I n an in rem

forfe iture action for violation o f a f ederal statute: (i ) ape rs on w ho a sse rt s a n in te re st i n or r igh t a ga ins t the pr ope rt y tha t i s th e subj ec t of

the a ct ion m

ust f ile ave ri fi edstate m en t id en ti fy in g t he in te res t o r ri gh t . . . (ii) a n agent, bailee, or attorney m ust state the autho rity to file a state m en t of

int er es t i n or

r igh t a ga ins t the pr ope rt y on b eh al f of an ot he r . . . . V iaMat f ile d th e co m

pla int a t i ssu e he re c ont en din g th at be cause the Government failed to com ply with the 18 U. S. C. § 983 (a)( 3)(A ) re quirem ent that itin st it ut e jud ic ia l fo rfei tu re p ro ceed in gs up on req ue stof acla im an t, 1 8 U.S.C. § 983( a) (3 )( B) m an da te s th at the G ove rn m en t pr om

ptl y r el ea se the pr ope rt y . T he district court granted the Governm ent’ s Motion to Dismiss, ruling that (1) Via Mat does nothave standing in the present action because it can not satisfy the statutory sta ndi ng r eq uir emen t of

S uppl emen ta l R ule C( 6) (a )( ii) , not w ith sta ndi ng the G ove rn m en t’ s f

ai lur e to f ile aj udi ci al f

or fe itu re c om

pla int ; a nd ( 2) e ve n if

V ia Ma t ha s st atuto rysta ndi ng, the iss ue is m oot be cause L es pa n, a s ow ne r of the7

pr ope rt y , a gr ee d to se ttl e the m atte r ad mini str at ive lya nd, a s ar es ult , the re is no ou ts ta nd in g i nju ry to Via M at . II. ISSUES 1. D oes a partyseeking the return of seized propertyhave to satisfy statutory standin g requirements und er the S uppl em ental Rules when the G overnm ent has not ins titute d aj udi ci al f

or fe itu re a ct ion byf

ili ng a c la im f or f or fe itu re in the di str i c tc ou r t ? 2. I s ac la im

f or r etur n of se iz edpr ope rt y m oot

w he n th e ow ne r of

the pr ope rt y ha s se ttl edw ith the G ove rn m en t bu t the part y w ho h adpos se ssi on a t the ti m e of
se iz ur e fi le d a n un an sw er edc la im f or the r etur n of

the pr ope rt y a nd i s st ill li ab le to t he o w ne r f or a nyp r op e r t y t hatr e m a i ns i n t he G ov e r nme nt ’ s po ss e ss i on ?

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ [T ] his c ourt r ev ie w s st an din g de novo .” E ng’ g Cont rac tor

s A ss’ n of S. Fla. , I nc . v . M et ro. D ade Co unt

y , 122 F . 3d 8 95, 903 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7)
. Mo otn es s is
a que sti on o f la w , w hic h th is c ourt r ev ie w s de novo
. Se e U nit ed Sta te s v . L ogal , 106 F. 3d 1 547, 155 1 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) ( “ [W ] he the r thi s c ourt sh oul d di smiss the ap pe al a s m oot

. . . pr es en t[ s a ] que sti on[ ] of la w sub j ec t t o de nov o re vie w . ”) ; Ala. Disabilities Advocacy P rogram v. J. S. Tarwater D evelopme ntal Center , 97Howeve r, not just any purported injury or intere st is sufficient– “stra w owner s” and pe rsons 5 who might have unknowing ly been in possession of pr operty that is seized do not nece ssarily suffe r an injury that is sufficient to demonstratestanding
. See United States v. Cambio Exac to, 166 F.3d 522, 527-28 (2nd Cir. 1999). 8 F. 3d 4 92, 496 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( em plo y ing ple narysta ndardof r ev ie w on q ue sti on of m oo tn es s)
. IV. DISCUSSI ON A
. A rt ic le I II S ta ndi ng W e be gin bya ddr es sin g st an din g un de r A rt ic le I II of the Co nst itu tio n, a s it is a th res ho ld m at te r req ui red fora cl ai m to be co ns id ered by the fed eral co ur ts . Se e W arth v
. Se ldi n , 422 U . S. 490 , 498 ( 1975 ) (S ta ndi ng i s “ the thr es hol d qu es tio n in ev ery fed eral cas e, de te rmin in g t he po wer o f th e co ur t t o e nt ert ai n t he su it .”). At t he he artof Art ic le III s ta nd in g i s t he ex is te nc e o f an in jury, no t o wne rs hi p. Ow nership of property that has been seized can be e vidence of the existence of an inj ur y that i s di re ct

e noug h to c onf

er sta ndi ng, but

ow ne rs hip is not

r eq uir ed ; no nowners, such as bailees or those with possess ory interests, c an also have injuries
re sul tin g f

ro m the se iz ur e of

pr ope rt y that are suf

fi ci en t t o e stabli sh s ta ndi ng. See 5 United States v. $38,000.00 in U. S. Currency , 816 F . 2d 1 538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1987 ) (“ A c la im an t ne ednot ow n th e pr ope rt y in or de r to h av e sta ndi ng t o c ont es t its f or fe itu re ; a

le sse r pr ope rt y int er es t, suc h a s apos se sso ryint er es t, is suf fi ci en tCam bio Ex ac to differ s from the case at bar beca use the a ctual owne rs of the f unds did not 6 separ ately settle with the Government and leave the money t ra n smitt ers to see k their own re lief. Ho we ve r, thi s ana ly sis is s til l app lic ableto Via Mat, wh o inc ur re d a loss sim ila

r to the c laimants in Cam bio Exac to and is threatened with being shut out of the court sy stem due to standing
. 9 for standing. . .
. As a

bailee, [the plaintiff] has a possesso ry interest in the bailed
cu rr en cy. . . [ an d] ha s A rt ic le I II sta ndi ng t o c ont es t the f or fe itu re of

the
cu rr en cy . ”) ; United States v. $260,242.00 in U.S. Currency , 919 F . 2d 6 86, 687 -8 8 (1 1th Ci r. 199 0) ( “ [A ] pos se sso ryint er es t ge ne ra llyis co nst itu tio na llysuf fi ci en t for claim s in forfeiture a ctions.”). Th e e c o n o mi c h ar m t o ap ar t y wi t h ap o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s ti n s e i z e d p r o p e r t y, im posed by virtue of its liability to the owner of such property , c an constitu te a pa lpable inj ur y suf

fi ci en t t o c onf

er sta ndi ng u nde r A rt ic le I II . T he S ec ond Ci rc uit , in U nit ed Sta te s v . Ca m bio E

xa cto , 166 F . 3d 5 22, 527 -2 8 ( 2nd Ci r. 199 9) , he ld that two m oney transm

itters had standin g to contest th e forf eiture of m oney seized out of the ir a cc ount s bythe G ove rn m en t du e to c ri m es a lle ge dlyc ommitt edby the ir c lie nts . T he c ourt f

oundthat the c om

pa nie s “ ha d af

ina nc ia l st ak e in the 6 fu nds be cause the y ha d ali ab ili tyto the ir c ust om er s in a n a m ount

e qua l t o th e forfe ited funds.” Id
. at

528
. “ Su bst an tia l e co nomic harm is pla inl y the ty pe of injuryfor w hich parties m ay seek redr ess in federal c ourt.” Id
. T he injurywa s

“ the direct re sult of ‘ putativ ely illegal’ [G ] overnm ental action in the form of anThe forf eiture statute at issue in $38,000 was 21 U.S.C. § 881, which concerns drug -re lated 7 forf eitures. How ever , the leg al analy sis applicable to that forfeiturestatute is substantiallysimil ar to the forf

eiture statute in this ca se, 18 U.S.C. § 983(a). 10 al le ge dlyunl aw fu l f

or fe itu re . T his inj ur y w oul d be r ed re sse d byasuc ce ssf ul challenge to the forfeiture. A rticle II I does not require m ore. ” Id
. (c itatio ns omit te d)
. T houg h V iaMat w as not the ow ne r of

the m one taryins trumen ts, it ha d a poss es sory int er es t i n th e pr ope rt y w he n it w as se iz edbythe G ove rn m en t. V ia Ma t the n su ff

er edadir ec t, sub sta nti al e co nomic inj ur y due to its li ab ili tyto L es pa n f or a ny of the pr ope rt y the G ove rn m en t di d no t r etur n to the ow ne r. V ia Mat ’s in jury is re al an d d ire ct , and is su ffi ci en t u nd er Art ic le III. B. S ta tut or y S ta ndi ng Unlike the constitut ional stand ing requirem ents that apply to all cases br ough t i n f

ed er al c ourts, “ statut or y sta ndi ng r eq uir emen ts, suc h a s th ose of the Supplem ental Rules, are im plicated only when, and as, the statute itself provides.” $38, 000. 00 , 816 F . 2d a t 15 44. T his c ourt ha s f oundthat the statut or y sta ndi ng re qui re m en ts o f Su ppl emen ta l R ule C( 6) are onl y inv oke d a ft er the G ove rn m en t ha s e xe cu te d j udi ci al pr oc es s, thu s “ cl ai m an ts n ee d no t satis fythe sta ndi ng re qui re m en ts o f the S uppl emen ta l R ule C( 6) unl es s, a nd u nti l, the [ G ] ove rn m en t ha s ex ecu te d p ro ces s p ur su an t t o [t he st at ut e].” Id
. at 1545. T his court reasoned 711

that claim ants are c onsis tently required to follow the language of the forf eiture pr oc ed ur e to the le tte r, a nd “ [i ] f an y thi ng, the bur de n on the [ G ] ove rn m en t t o adhere to the procedural rules sho uld be heavier than on claim ants. For feitures ar e not f av or edin the la w ; stri ct

c om pli an ce w ith the le tte r of

the la w bytho se se eking forfe iture m

ust be required.” I

d. at 1 54 7. V iaMat f ile d ava lidc la im

a nd d em an de d th at

the G ove rn m en t f

oll ow the j udicial forfeiture proce ss, w hich triggered the Government’ s duty to file a
co m pla int in the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he pla in l an gua ge of the statut e is c le ar : “ N ot later than 90 day s after

a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a
co m pla int f or f or fe itu re . . . I f the G ove rn m en t do es not . . . the G ove rn m en t sh al l pr om ptl y r el ea se the pr ope rt y . . . . ” 18 U
. S. C. § 98 3( a) (3 ). S ta tut or y sta ndi ng unde r Ru le C( 6) is not

inh er en t t o a ll fo rf

ei tur e ac tio ns; it

is onl y r eq uir edif spe ci fi ca llyinv oke d bystatut e an d r eq uir edbypr oc ed ur al rule s th at are stric tly
co nstru ed
. T he G ove rn m en t i gnor edV ia Mat’ s va lid ly -s ubmitt edc la im a nd d id not file a com

plaint for forfe iture within 90 day s, thus the provis ions o f § 983( a) (4 )( A ), w hic h w oul d ha ve r eq uir edV iaMat t o f ile ac la im

c onf or ming to Su ppl emen ta l R ule C( 6) , w er e ne ve r inv oke d. A cc or din gly , V iaMat ne ednot
sa ti sf y Ru le C(6 ) st at ut or y st an di ng . C. Mo otn es s12

T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lte rn at ive lyhe ld tha t V iaMat’ s c la im w as m oot , re as o n i n g t h atVi a M at ’s o n l y i n t er es ti n t h e a ct i o n wa s d er i v at i v e o f L es p an ’s i n t er es t . Th u s , Le s p an s et t l i n g wi t h t h e G o v er n m en tex t i n g u i s h ed Vi a M at ’s cl ai m , de spi te it s r em ai nin g li ab ili tyto L es pa n f or a ny r et ai ne d pr ope rt y a nd i ts atte m pts to co nte st the la w fu lne ss o f the se iz ur e. H ow ev er , w e co nc lud e tha t V ia Ma t’ s c la im

is not m oot und er thr ee vie w s. F ir st, V iaMat’ s in j ur y is sti ll ex ist ing , subs ta nti al , a nd r ea l, a s e xpl ai ne d supr a , a nd it is easily redre ssibl e by the district
co urt. C ust om s’ a dmini str at ive r es olu tio n of L es pa n’ s c la im

didnot e xti ngui sh V iaMat’ s c la im , it

m er el y r ed uc edit

to a de fi nit e inj ur y ba se d on the a m ount of the pr ope rt y that C ust om s di d no t r etur n to L es pa n. S ec ond, de cl aring the iss ue m oot w oul d de pr ive V iaMat of due pr oc es s. B y ign or ing the va lidc la im f ile d by V iaMat a nd r ef

usi ng t o f ile ac om pla int w ith the c ourt, the G ove rn m en t unilaterally chose with w hich party it would deal, depriving Via Mat of its chance to de fen d i ts in te res t i n t he pro pe rty and co nt es t t he for fei tu re i n t he di st ric t co ur t. Once any person files a claim , the G overnm ent is required to either initiate a j udicial action or return the property
. 18 U. S. C. § 983 (a)( 3). The statute is clear on th is po in t; Via M atha s a r ig htto jud ic ia l p ro ces s. T hir d, the e sse nti al na tur e of f or fe itu rea ct ion s is suc h th at the c au se of action is notrendere d m oot by the Government settling with one potential13

claim ant. “ A f

orfeiture proce eding is n ot an action against th e claim ant but rather is a n in rem a ct ion a ga ins t the se iz edpr ope rt y br ough t un de r the f ic tio n th at

the property itself is guilty of fac ilitating the crime. ” $38, 000. 00 , 816 F . 2d a t 15 43 n.12. B y proceeding administratively with L espan, the G overnm ent m erelysettled
w ith one part y that ha d ac la im to the m one y it

w as hol din g; i t di d no t di spos e of al l po ssi ble c la im an ts a nd d id n ot j udi ci al lypr ose cu te the und er ly ing c ri m e of
w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y w a s a c c u s e d
. A s l o n g a s t h e G o v e r n me n ti s s t i l l h o l d i n g s o me of the property , it m

ust giv e due process to parties claiming a right to h ave that property relea sed. V ia Mat, as a c laim ant to the property , had a right to in sist that the G ove rn m en t f

ile aj udi ci al f

or fe itu re c om

pla int to co nte st the le ga lit y of the fo rf ei t u re . Th e G o v er n m en ts t i l l h as p o s s es s i o n o f t h e p ro p er t y, th u s Vi a M at ’s in jury is re al an d i ts cla im

is no t m oo t. V. CONCLUSION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g th e de fe nda nt’ s M oti on t o D ism iss a nd r em an d th is c as e fo r fu rthe r pr oc ee din gs co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED a nd REMANDED.