UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff,

v. SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLA RS ($17,900) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY , Defendant,

ANGELA RODRIGUEZ and JOYCE COPELAND , Claimants. Case No. 15-cv-00368 (CRC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The case of the Samaritan trai n passenger is nearing its final destination. Interested readers may recall that in Ma rch 2014 an Amtrak passenger inadv ertently exited a train with a backpack containing $17,900 in cas h and turned it over to the p olice. That selfless act spawned this action, in which the Unite d States seeks forfeiture of the money as proceeds of drug trafficking. Standing in the govern ment’s tracks are Angela Ro driquez, whose son Peter was travelling with the backpack on t he train, and her domestic par tner Joyce Copeland. They filed sworn claims insisting that the cash is lawfully theirs. The Court briefly derailed the women’s claims in August 2016. Applying the summary judgment standard, the Court found t hat the couple’s tall tale of how the money wound up in Peter’s backpack so “defie[d] c ommon sense” that no reasonable juror could conclude they owned the money. United States v. $17,900, 200 F. Supp. 3d 13 2, 140 (D.D.C. 2016). The2 Court of Appeals disagreed, howev er, and reversed the Court’s r uling striking the claims. United States v. $17,900, 859 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Circuit held that the claimants’ story of ownership, while improbable perhap s, was sufficient to require a jury because it was not “undermined either by other credible evidence, physical impossi bility, or other persuasive evidence that the plaintiff has deliberately committed perjury. ” Id. at 1093 (quoting Chenari v. George Washington University, 847 F.3d 740, 747 (D.C. Cir. 2017 )). 1 On remand, the parties proceeded to conduct additional discove ry. And after receiving responses to its document request s, the government has again mo ved to strike the couple’s

claims. The claims should be str icken, the government argues, because discovery has revealed evidence that the claimants perjured themselves. Here’s the skinny: The couple’ s claims to the money rest on t heir contention that they

left their home in New Yor k on February 15, 2014, drove to Nort h Carolina where Peter lived, left the cash with him, and the n returned to New York on Februa ry 26, 2014. They presented this narrative in sworn responses t o special interrogatories is sued by the government. The

1 In so holding, the panel wisely cautioned the government (and, implicitly, district courts) against “circumvent[i ng] the jury process” by discredit ing sworn testimony “because it is out of line with our own live d experiences.” 859 F.3d at 1093. To illustrate the point, the court noted that “a jury of laypeople w ith different and more diverse life experiences” might view the claimants’ professed choice to t ravel with and use sizable amou nts of cash rather than a credit card with “considerably less susp icion” than might “the soverei gn’s judges.” Id. See also id. at 1090 (citing official reports tha t low-income, minority househo lds are less likely to use banking and similar financial services) . But just to set the record st raight, this Court made clear in its ruling that it considered the very point raised by the Court of Appeals, yet found it inapplicable to the claimants. See 200 F . Supp. 3d at 140 n.8 (“The Court i s mindful of Claimants’ observation that some lower-incom e Americans maintain cash beca use they are e ffectively shut out of the traditional banking sys tem. At the time of the rele vant events, however, both women maintained bank accounts, at least Ms. Copeland was gainfully e mployed, and both were wealthy enough to have purchased mink coats that they claim to have re- sold for $5,000 each.”). On this score at least, the Court was not substituting its own “lived e xperiences” for those of the claimants; it was applying comm on sense to a story that never m ade any.3 government now has the claimant s’ bank records. Lo and behold, they show that the women

made numerous cash withdrawals an d charges to their credit card s in New York City—including purchases at Gucci and Dean & D eluca no less—during the 11-day period they swore they were

in North Carolina. Second M ot. Strike Claims, Exs. 6–10. So t heir story of how Peter got the cash is directly contradicted by t he bank records. Persuasive evidence of perjury indeed. Faced with the government’s renew ed motion to strike, the clai mants’ attorneys filed a perfunctory opposition that did not contest the government’s ev idence. They then moved to

withdraw from the case. After a hearing—which neither claimant attended despite the Court’s order that at least one of them do so—the Court permitted couns el’s withdrawal and provided the claimants nearly a month to supplement their opposition to the government’s motion. Hearing no response, the Court deemed any further opposition to be aban doned. See May 25, 2018 Minute Order; Local Civ. R. 7(b), (f).

The end of the line should now be obvious: In light of the go vernment’s uncontested evidence that Ms. Rodriquez a nd Ms. Copeland perjured themselve s in their sworn interrogatory responses, the Court finds that they lack standing to challenge forfeiture of the currency and, accordingly, will strike their c laims with prejudice. A separa te order will follow.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: May 31, 2018