# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 25 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mas k o f Ka-Nefe r-Nefe r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Art M us eu m

Su bd is tri ct of t he Met ro po li ta n Zo ol og ic al Park an d M us eu m Dis tri ct of th e Ci ty of St . Lou is an d t he Co un ty of St . Lou is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Cl ai man t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 14
Fil ed : J un e 1 2, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.The is su e rai se d on th is ap pe al is whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s 1

di sc ret io n in de nyin g t h e g o v e r nm en t’s po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e an

am en de d ci vi l fo rfei tu re co m pl ai nt

. Und erl y in g th at is su e is an at te m pt to ex pa nd th e

go ve rn m en t’s fo rfei tu re po wers at th e li ke ly ex pe ns e of m useum s an d ot he r go od fai th

pu rch as ers in th e in te rn at io na l m ark et pl ace fo r an c i e n t art ifa ct s. W e affi rm th e
di st ric t co ur t’s pr oc ed ur al ru li ng an d th eref or e le av e th is im

po rta nt su bs ta nt iv e is su e

fo r an ot he r da y

.

I.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e go ve rn m en t’s fo rfei tu re co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re

to st at e a cl ai m , so we are l im it ed to th e pl ead ed fact s. The go ve rn m en t’s n ot ic e o f

ap pe al in cl ud ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s Ord er of Dis m is sa l, bu t th e St at em en t of th e Is su e

se ct io n of the go ve rn m en t’s bri ef sta te d th at th e on ly is su e on ap pe al is whe th er the

co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a po st -d is m is s al m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e an

am en de d co m

pl ai nt

. The St at em en t in th e br ie f is co nt ro ll in g. See F.R.A.P. 28 (a)( 5) ;

So lo m on v. Pet ray, 69 9 F.3 d 1 03 4, 1 03 7 n .2 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ). Ther efo re, t he ap pe al

of th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l ha s be en waiv ed

, an d we ne ed no t be co nc ern ed ab ou t th e

tru th of t he pl ead ed fact s.

The fo rfei tu re co m

pl ai nt al le ge d th at th e Mas k of Ka-Nefer- Nefer is a 3,2 00

-

y ear- ol d Egypti an m

um m y ca rt onna ge dis co ve red in 19 52 by an arch eo lo gi st wor ki ng

fo r th e Egypti an go ve rn m en t an d reg is te red as go ve rn m en t pr op ert y

. The Mas k was
ho us ed in a st o r a g e f

a ci li ty in Saq qa ra, Egypt, un ti l 19 59

, whe n it was se nt to th e Egypti an Mu se um in Cai ro fo r us e wit h an ex hi bi t in Tok y o, Ja pa n. The Mas k ne ve r

wen t to Ja pa n, in st ead re t u r n i ng to Saq qa ra in 19 62

. In 19 66 , a bo x co nt ai ni ng th e

Mas k an d ot he r art ifa ct s was se nt to a res to rat io n la b in Cai ro to pr ep are th e art ifa ct s

The Hon or ab le Hen ry E. Aut rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-fo r di sp la y

. W he n th e Egypti an Mu se um in Cai ro in ve nt or ie d th e bo x’s co nt en ts in

19 73

, th e Mas k was go ne

. The Egypti an go ve rn m en t’s reg is te r of an ti qu it ie s sh owe d

no tra ns fer to a pr iv at e pa rty be twee n 19 66

, whe n th e Mas k was la st se en , an d 19 73

. In 20 0 6

, t he Egypti an go ve rn m en t le arn ed th at th e Art Mu se um Su bd is tri ct of th e

Met ro po li ta n Zoo lo gi cal Park an d Mu se um Dis t ric t of th e Ci ty an d Co un ty of St

. Lou is ( th e “ Mu se um ”) pu rch as ed th e Mas k in 19 98

. The Mu se um refu se d th e Egypti an go ve rn m en t’s re pe at ed req ue st s t o re tu rn th e Ma sk

.

At a Ja nu ary 20 11 m eet in g wit h Mu se um at to rn ey s, re p r e s e n t a ti ve s of th e
Uni te d St at es th reat en ed to br in g a fo rfei tu re pr oc eed in g ag ai ns t th e Mas k un le ss th e

Mu se um vo lu nt ari ly su rren de red it

. The Mu se um res po nd ed by fil in g a de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n in th e East ern Dis tri ct o f M i s s o u ri. Rec it in g th e Mu se um ’s

co nf li ct in g ve rs io n of th e hi st or ic al fact s, an d as se rti ng th at an y fo rfei tu re cl ai m

wou ld be ti m e-b arre d by th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut e of li m it at io ns in 19 U.S.C. § 16 21

, th e

Mu se um so ug ht a de cl arat i o n t h at th e Mas k is no t su bjec t to fo rfei tu re. The Art

M u s e u m S u b d is t. of th e Met ro

. Zoo lo gi cal Park & Mu se um Dis t. of St

. Lou is v

. Uni te d St at es , No. 4: 11 -cv -0 02 91 (E.D. Mo

. fil ed Feb

. 15

, 20 11 ). The Uni te d St at es rejo i n e d o n M a r c h 16 , f

il in g a m ot io n to st ay th e Mu se um ’s d ecl arat or y act io n an d

a ve rif ie d ci vi l fo rfei tu re co m

pl ai nt un de r 19 U.S.C. § 15 95 a(c)

. Part of th e Tari ff

A c t o f 1 93 0, th is st at ut e no w pr ov id es , in rel ev an t pa rt: “ Mer ch an di se whi ch i s

in tro du ced or at te m

pt ed to be in tro du ced in to th e Uni te d St at es co nt rary to la w sh al l

be

. . . (1 )

. . . se iz ed an d fo rfei te d i f i t

- - ( A ) is st ol en , sm ug gl ed

, or cl an de st in el y

im po rte d or in tro du ced .” The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n to st ay

th e Mu se um ’s de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n pe nd in g res ol ut io n of th e fo rfei tu re cas e.

The fo rfei tu re co m

pl ai nt al le ge d th at th e Mas k w a s “ m is si ng ” aft er 19 66

be cau se it ha d be en st ol en an d sm ug gl ed ou t of Egypt. “Be cau se th e Mas k was

st ol en , ” th e co m

pl ai nt co nc lu de d, “ it co ul d no t ha ve be en la wfu ll y ex po rte d fro m Egypt or la wfu ll y im

po rte d in to th e Uni te d St at es .” The Mu se um fil ed a ti m el y cl ai m

th at it own ed th e Mas k an d m o v e d to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a

-3

-cl ai m , al le gi n g th at th e go ve rn m en t’s co m pl ai nt la ck ed fact s su pp or ti ng th e cl ai m
wit h th e de ta il req ui re d b y S u p p le m en ta l Ru le s E(2) (a) an d G(2 )(f) to th e Fed eral

Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e, whi ch go ve rn ci vi l fo rfei tu re a c t i o n s

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e 2

Mu se um arg ue d, th e co m

pl ai nt fai le d to al le ge de ta il ed fact s sh owi ng th at “ th e Mas k

was st ol en ” an d th at it ha d be en in tro du ced in to th e Uni te d St at es “ co nt rary to la w.”

In a Ju ne 20 11 Mem o r a n d u m i n Opp os it io n, th e go ve rn m en t res po nd ed th at it s

co m pl ai nt ne e d on ly pl ead “ fact s [th at ] pr ov id e pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e 3

Mas k was st ol en fro m Cai ro , an d th at th eref or e it s im po rta ti on in to th e Uni te d St at es

in 19 98 was i n v io la ti on of 1 9 U.S.C. § 15 95 a.”

Mo re th an on e y ear aft er th e fo rfei tu re co m pl ai nt was fil ed , t he di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d th e Mu se um ’s m ot io n to di sm is s. Uni te d St at es v. Mas k of Ka-Nefe r-Nefe r,

No. 4: 11 CV5 04

, 20 12 W L 10 94 65 8 (E.D. Mo

. Mar

. 31

, 2 01 2)

. The m em or an du m

op in io n ex pl ai ne d th at th e co m pl ai nt ’s “ on e bo ld as se rti on th at be cau se so m et hi ng

wen t m is si ng fro m on e pa rty in 19 73 an d tu rn ed up wit h an ot he r pa rty in 19 98

, it was

th eref or e st ol en an d/ or im

po rte d or ex po rte d il le ga ll y ” di d no t pl ead su ffi ci en tl y
de ta il ed fact s sh owi ng (1 ) th at th e Mas k was “sto le n, sm ug gl ed

, or cl an de st in el y

im po r t e d or in tro du ced ” in to th e Uni te d St at es , an d (2 ) “ fact s rel at ed to so m e

pr ed ic at e un la wfu l of

fen se , pr es um ab ly a la w w i t h so m e ‘nex us ’ to in te rn at io na l

Su pp

. Ru le E(2) (a) pr ov id es th at a ci vi l fo rfei tu re co m pl ai nt “ sh al l st at e th e 2

ci rcu m st an ces fro m whi ch th e cl ai m ari se s wit h su ch pa rti cu la rit y t h a t t h e

. . . cl ai m an t wil l be ab le

, wit ho ut m ov in g fo r a m or e de fin it e st at em en t, to co m m en ce an in ve st ig at io n of th e fact s an d to fram e a res po ns iv e pl ead in g.” Ru le G(2 )(f) pr ov id es th at th e co m

pl ai nt mus t “ st at e su ffi ci en tl y de ta il ed fact s to su pp or t a reas on ab le be li ef
th at th e g ov ern m en t wi ll be ab le to m eet it s b ur de n o f pr oo f at tri al .”

In ci vi l fo rfei tu re act io ns un de r th e cu st om s la ws in Tit le 19

, if th e go ve rn m en t 3

sh ows pr ob ab le cau se th at th e pr op ert y is su bjec t to fo rfei tu re, th e cl ai m an t ha s th e bu rd en to pr ov e it is no t. See 19 U.S.C. § 16 15 ; Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 64 8 F.3 d 84

, 95 -9 6 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 ). Co ng res s ga ve cl ai m an ts a m or e fav or ab le bu rd en of pr oo f in
th e Ci vi l Ass et Fo rfei tu re Refo rm Act o f 2 0 0 0 (“ CAFRA” ), bu t ex cl ud ed Tit le 19
fo rfei tu re p ro vi si on s fr om th at refo rm . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 98 3( i)( 2) (A).

-4

-co m

m erce fro m whi ch th e Tit le 19 cu st om s reg ul at io n ari se s.” The co ur t ci te d Dav is

,

a de ci si on in whi c h t h e S e co nd Ci rcu it di sc us se d “ The Mea ni ng of ‘Con tra ry to

Law’” in 1 9 U.S.C. § 15 95 a(c) . 64 8 F .3d at 8 9- 90

.

On Apr il 6, th e go ve rn men t f i l ed a Mo ti on fo r Enl arg em en t of Tim e To Fi le

Mo ti on fo r Rec on si de rat io n an d/ or To Seek Leav e To Fi le Am en de d Co m pl ai nt Pri or

to Ent ry of Ju dg m en t. The go ve rn m en t as se rte d t h a t i t w ou ld m ov e to reco ns id er
be cau se th e co ur t’s Ord er di sm is se d on ly th e co m pl ai nt an d no t th e un de rlyin g act io n
bu t wo ul d a ls o s eek rel ie f un de r Ru le s 59 (e) and 60 (b )(6 ) if th e co ur t “ co ns tru es it s
Ord er as

. . . a di sm is sa l of th e ‘acti on .’ ” In a do ck et te xt or de r en te red Apr il 10

, th e

co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t “ un ti l 5- 7- 12 to fil e wha t it su gg es ts i s a m ot io n to

reco ns id er.” The te xt no ti ce st at ed : “ W ARNING: CASE CLOSED on 3/ 31 /2 01 2.” 4

On May 7, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed it s m ot io n to reco ns id er, arg ui ng th at th e co ur t

ha d m is un de rs to od th e pl ead in g st an da rd go ve rn in g ci vi l fo rfei tu re act io ns un de r 19

U.S.C. § 15 95 a(c) (1 )(A). The Mem or an du m in Su pp or t m or e fu ll y di sc lo se d th e

li ti ga ti on st rat eg y un de rlyin g th e ba re-bones fo rf eitu re co m

pl ai nt

. Ci ti ng th e st at ut e’s

“ pl ai n t e x t ” bu t no su pp or ti ng cas e la w, th e go ve rn m en t as se rte d: “ Sect io n 15 95 a

it s e l f p r o h ib it s th e im

po rta ti on of st ol en pr op ert y in to th e Uni te d St at es , r eg ard le ss

On ap pe al

, t h e go ve rn m en t rep eat ed ly co m pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s 4

fai lu re to cl ari fy whe th e r i t s Mar ch 31 di sm is sa l was a fin al or de r jus ti fie d th e
go ve rn m en t’s d el ay

in m ov in g fo r le av e to am en d. W e di sa gr ee. The co ur t’s April
10 do ck et or de r ex pr es sl y st at ed

, “ CASE CLOSED on 3/ 31 /2 0 1 2

. ” G o ve rn m en t

co un se l s im

pl y was n ot pa y in g a tt en ti on . Mor eo ve r, we ru le d m an y y ears ag o t ha t,

un le ss le av e to am en d is ex pl ic it ly gr an te d in a di sm is sa l or de r, “ th e di s mi s s a l i s a fin al

, ap pe al ab le or de r.” Qua rta na v. Utt erb ack

, 78 9 F.2 d 12 97

, 12 99 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ).
Thi s ru le was rei nf

or ced by th e 20 09 am en dm en t to Ru le 15 (a)( 1) (B), whi ch li m it ed

a pa rty’ s tim e to am en d it s pl ead in g as of rig ht to “ 21 da y s afte r se rv ic e of a m ot io n

un de r ru le 12 (b ).” The Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not es ex pl ai ne d, “ Thi s p ro vi si on wil l
fo rce th e pl ead er to co ns id er care fu ll y an d pr om pt ly th e wis do m of am en di ng to m eet th e arg um en ts in th e m ot io n.” Aga in

, go ve rn m en t co un se l was no t pa y in g at te nt io n.

-5

-of whe th er an y ot he r la w ha s be en vi ol at ed in th e pr oc es s of im po rta ti on .” The

Mem or an du m ex pl ai ne d away Dav is an d ot he r earl ie r co nt rary de ci si on s as refl ect in g

as su m pt io ns m ad e b y

th os e co ur ts ba se d o n b ur de ns of pr oo f “ th e g ov ern m en t m ay

ha ve as su m ed ” in th os e cas es

. Tha t ex pl an at io n m ay fit so m e of th e op in io ns , bu t it

do es no t fi t al l t he § 1 59 5a pre ced en ts we ha ve fo un d. See Uni te d St at es v. 57 ,26 1

Ite m s of Dru g Para ph ern al ia

, 86 9 F.2 d 95 5, 95 6 (6 th Ci r.) (Cu st om s ag en ts “ m ad e th e

se iz ur e un de r th e rem ed ia l pr ov is io ns fo r ci vi l fo rfei tu re fo un d in

. . . 19 U.S.C.
§ 15 95 a(c)

. . . in co m

bi na ti on wit h

. . . th e 19 86 st at ut e m ak in g it ‘unl awfu l for any

pe rs o n

. . . to im

po rt or ex po rt dr ug pa rap he rn al ia ”), cert

. de ni ed

, 49 3 U.S. 93 3
(1 98 9) ; Uni te d St at es v. One 19 70 Fo rd Pi ck -Up Truc k, 53 7 F. Su pp

. 36 8, 37 0 (N.D.

5

Ohi o 19 81 ) (“ The go ve rn m en t . . . had th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng

. . . pr ob ab le cau se to

be li ev e th e go od s were in tro du ced in t o t h e Uni te d St at es co nt rary to la w. Thi s th e

go ve rn m en t d id , wit h e vi de nc e . . . the [bo nd ed ] co nt ai ne rs were b ro ke n i nt o.” ).

The si gn ifi can ce of th is is su e se em s qu it e cl ear. The “ st ol en m erch an di se ”

su bs ect io n, § 15 95 a(c) (1 )(A), was ad de d by a 19 93 am en dm en t. In th e rep or te d cas es

we ha ve fo un d whe re th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht fo rfei tu re un de r th is su bs ect io n, th e
cl ai m ha s be en th at im

po rta ti o n o f t h e st ol en m erch an di se vi ol at ed th e Nati on al

St ol en Pro pe rty Act (“ NSPA”), 1 8 U.S.C. § § 23 14

, 23 15

, se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v

. A 10 th Cen t. Cam

bo di an San ds to ne Scu lp tu re, No. 12 Ci v. 26 00

, 20 13 W L 12 90 51 5

at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar

. 28

, 20 13 ), or Cu st om s s ta tu te s t ha t cr im in al iz e th e smugg li ng

of m erch an di se in to th is co un try, se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 54 2, 54 5; Uni te d St at es v.

Bro ad en in g- In fo Ent s., 46 2 F. Ap p ’x 9 3

, 96 (2 d Ci r. 20 12 ). In Dav is

, th e Seco nd

Ci rcu it he ld th at th e NSPA ha d th e req ui si te ne xu s to in te rn at io na l co m m erce to

su ffi ce “ as a ba si s fo r [th e go ve rn m en t’s] in vo cat io n of Sect io n 15 95 a.” 64 8 F.3 d at

90

. A vi ol at io n of th e NSPA req ui res p r o of th at va lu ab le m erch an di se was

tra ns po rte d in fo rei gn co m m erce “ kn owi ng th e sa m e to ha ve be en st ol en , co nv ert ed

Ove rru le d in pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd s, Po st ers ‘N ’ Thi ng s, Ltd

. v. Uni te d St at es , 5

51 1 U.S. 5 13 , 51 8- 19 (19 94 ).

-6

-or ta ke n by frau d.” § 23 14

. In Uni te d St at es v. P o r t r a i t of W al ly, 66 3 F. Su pp

. 2d

2 3 2

, 26 9 (S.D.N.Y 20 09 ), th e go ve rn m en t was de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t on it s § 1 59 5a cla im , des pi te su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t ha t t he pa in ti ng was st ol en , bec au se th e

co ur t fo un d th at whe ther “ th e Mu se um im po rte d W al ly in to th e Uni te d St at es kn ow in g
it was ei th er st ol en or co nv ert ed ” was a ge nu in e is su e of di sp ut ed fact

. Alt ho ug h th e

go ve rn m en t ha s be en gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t on th is is su e in ot he r cas es , th e 6

st an d- al on e in te rp ret at io n of th e “ co nt r a r y t o la w” el em en t ur ge d in th is cas e, if

ad op te d, wou ld gr eat ly en ha nc e th e go ve rn m en t’s fo rfei tu re p o w er un de r § 15 95 a,
wit ho ut an y cl ear bas is in th e st at ut e’s te xt fo r th is en ha nc em en t. The is su e m ay be

un res ol ve d, bu t pr eced en t an d pa st pr act ic e do no t fav or th e go ve rn m en t’s po si ti on

. 7

The go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n to reco ns id er di d no t ci te an ap pl ic ab le Fed eral Ru le

-- a da ng ero us om is si on -- an d a ga in req ue st ed th at th e Co ur t gran t “ an op po rtu ni ty

be fo re en try of jud gm en t to m ov e fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt .” On May

23

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a no w-fri vo lo us m ot io n to cl ari fy whe th er th e M a r c h 31

Ord er was a fin al or d e r , req ue st in g an ex te ns io n of ti m e to ap pe al if it was

. The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n to reco ns id er on Ju ne 1. Rec it in g th e st an d a rd s

go ve rn in g Ru le 59 (e) m ot io ns , th e co ur t co nc lu de d th e go ve rn m en t of fere d “ no th in g

ne w” an d i de nt ifi ed no “ se ve re m is ta ke ” in th e or ig in al de ci si on

. The co ur t de ni ed

th e m ot io n t o c la rif

y an d g ran te d a n e xt en si on of t im e to ap pe al to Ju ly 1, 20 12

.

See Uni te d St at es v. An Ant iq ue P l a t t er of Gol d, 99 1 F. Su pp

. 22 2, 23 1- 32 6 ( S.D.N.Y. 19 97 ), aff’d on ot he r gr ou nd s, 18 4 F.3 d 13 1, 13 4 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ), ce r t

. de ni ed , 52 8 U.S. 1 13 6 (2 00 0)

.

Part ic ul arl y in li gh t of th e co ng res si on al at ti tu de refl ect ed in CAFRA, th e 7

Exe cu ti ve Bran ch sh ou ld an ti ci pa te jud ic ia l res is ta nc e to ex pa ns io n of th e “ pu ni ti ve

an d re m ed ia l ju ris pr ud en ce” t ha t h as lo ng pe rm it te d fo rfei tu re o f pr op ert y acq ui red by no n- cu lp ab le pa rti es

. See Un io n P ac. R.R. v . U.S. Dep’t o f Hom el an d S ec., 738
F.3 d 88 5, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), no ti ng th e vi ews on th is qu es ti on ex pr es se d in th e fo ur

se pa rat e o pi ni on s i n B en ni s v . Mic hi ga n, 5 16 U.S. 44 2 (1 99 6)

.

-7

-On Ju ne 8, th e go ve rn m en t fo r th e fir st ti m e fil ed a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d

it s co m pl ai nt an d a pr o p o s e d am en de d co m pl ai nt

, ci ti ng Ru le s 15 (a)( 2)

, 59 (e), an d

60 (b )(1 ). The a men d e d co m pl ai nt co nt ai ne d a nu m

be r of ne w fact ua l al le ga ti on s

pu rp or ti ng to cu re th e de fect s in it s p r i o r c o mpla in t rel at in g to th e “ is st ol en ” an d

“ co nt rary t o la w” el em en ts of a fo rfei tu re cl ai m un de r 19 U.S.C. § 1 59 5a . On Ju ne

28

, th e co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r th e reas on s st at ed in i t s Mar ch 31 an d Ju ne 1

Ord ers . The g ov ern m en t t im el y fil ed it s n ot ic e o f ap pe al on Ju ne 29

.

II

.

A. The go ve rn m en t as se rts in th e Arg um en t se ct io n of it s br ie f th at th e di st ric t

c o u r t de pa rte d fro m “ typic al pr act ic e” whe n it di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt wit ho u t

in vi ti ng th e go ve rn m en t to am en d. Thi s is an at ta ck on t h e M a r c h 3 1 Ord er of

Dis m is sa l th at was no t in cl ud ed in th e St at em en t of th e Is su e on ap pe al

. In an y ev en t,

wha te ve r m ay be “ typic al ” in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s, Eig ht h Ci rcu it la w ha s lo ng be en to

th e co nt rary. In W ol gi n v

. S im on , fo r ex am pl e, whe re pl ai nt iff req ue st ed le av e to

am en d if the co ur t g ran te d d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o di sm is s, we he ld “ th at to pr es erv e

th e rig ht to am en d a co m

pl ai nt a pa rty m

us t su bm it a pr op os ed am en dm en t al on g wit h

it s m ot io n.” 72 2 F.2 d 38 9

, 39 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). Late r de ci si on s ha ve st at ed

, lo gi cal ly, th at a di st ric t co ur t in gr an ti ng a m ot io n to di sm is s is no t ob li ge d to in vi te

a m o t i o n fo r le av e to am en d if pl ai nt iff di d no t fil e on e. See Dro bn ak v. And ers en

Co rp ., 5 61 F.3 d 77 8, 78 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 09 ); Carl so n v. Hy un da i Mo to r Co ., 1 64 F.3 d

11 60 , 1 16 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Here, t he go ve rn m en t fai le d to req ue st le av e to am en d

in th e el ev en m on th s be twee n th e Mu se um ’s m ot io n to di sm is s an d th e co ur t’s Ord er

of Dis miss al

, ch oo si ng in st ead to st an d on an d de fen d it s or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. The

di st ric t co ur t h ad no reas on to qu es ti on th at li ti ga ti on st rat eg y

.

B. Turn in g to th e p o s t -jud gm en t m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d

co m pl ai nt

, it is well -s et tl ed th at pl ai nt iff s “ rem ai n free whe re di sm is sa l or de rs do no t

gr an t le av e to am en d to se ek va cat io n of th e jud gm en t un de r Ru le s 59 an d 60 [b ] an d

-8

-of

fer an am en de d co m

pl ai nt in pl ace of th e di sm is se d co m pl ai nt .” Qua rta na , 78 9 F.2 d

at 13 00

. Bu t it is al so well -s et tl ed th a t “d i s t r i c t co ur ts in th is ci rcu it ha ve

co ns id erab le di sc ret io n to de ny a [ti m el y ] po st -jud gm en t m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d

b e c a u s e su ch m ot io ns are di sf av or ed

, bu t m ay no t ig no re th e Ru le 15 (a)( 2 )

co ns id erat io ns th at fav or affo rd in g par ti es an op po rtu ni ty to t es t t he ir c la im s o n t he

m eri ts .” Uni te d Stat es ex rel

. Ro op v. Hy po gu ard USA, In c., 55 9 F.3d 81 8, 82 3- 24
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Leav e to am en d wil l be gr an te d if it is co ns is te nt wit h th e st rin ge nt

st an da rd s go ve rn in g th e gr an t of Ru le 59 (e) an d Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f

. See Dor n v. St at e

Ban k of St el la

, 76 7 F.2 d 44 2, 44 3- 44 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ); Acev ed o- Vil la lo bo s v.

Hern an de z, 22 F.3d 38 4, 3 89 (1s t Ci r.), cert . den ie d, 5 13 U.S. 10 15 (19 94 ).

Alt ho ug h th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d c i t e d b ot h Ru le 59 (e)

an d Ru le 60 (b ), th e Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n was u n t i mely

. Ru le 59 (e) pr ov id es th at th e

m ot io n m us t be fil ed wit hi n twen ty-eig ht da y s of “ th e en try of th e jud gm en t” it

ch al le ng es

. Here, th e go ve rn m en t as se rte d th at it s Ju ne 8 m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d

was ti m el y un de r Ru le 59 ( e ) b e c a u s e it s pr io r Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n to reco ns id er

e x t e nd ed th e 28 -d ay ti m e pe rio d. W e ne ed no t co ns id er th at qu es ti on of “ to ll i n g ”

be cau se th e go ve rn m en t fil ed it s m ot io n to reco ns id er on May 7, th irt y -fi ve da y s aft er

en try of th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l. Ru le 59 (e)’s 28 -d ay ti m e li m it may no t be ext en de d.

See Ru le 6( b) (2 ). The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of an ex te ns io n to May 7 was

a nu ll it y , an d no ti m el y Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n was ev er fil e d

. As a di st ric t co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er an u n t i mel y Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n, th at ru le co ul d no t su pp or t th e

go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d. See Reyher v. Ch am pi on In t’l Co rp ., 97 5

F.2 d 4 83 , 48 9 (8 th Cir . 19 92 ).

A di st ric t co ur t h as di sc ret io n u nd er Ru le 60 (b ) to gra nt po st -jud gm en t l eav e

to fil e an am en de d co m

pl ai nt if th e m ot io n is “ m ad e wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m e,” Ru le

60 ( c ) ( 1 ), an d th e m ov in g pa rty sh ows “ ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces ” warra nt in g

“ ex tra or di na ry rel ie f.” Uni te d St at es v

. You ng , 80 6 F.2 d 80 5, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ),

cert . d en ie d, 48 4 U.S. 8 36 (1 98 7)

. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f le av e to

-9

-am en d un de r Ru le 60 (b ) fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Hor ras v. Am

. Cap it al

St rat eg ie s, Ltd

., 72 9 F.3 d 79 8, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 13 46
(2 01 4) ; Yo un g, 8 06 F.2d at 80 6. “ Ru le 60 (b ) was no t i nt en de d a s a s ub st it ut e fo r a
di rect ap pe al fro m an erro ne ou s jud gm en t.” Sp in ar v. S.D. Bd

. of Reg en ts

, 79 6 F.2 d

10 60

, 10 62 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, th e pr op er reco ur se whe n th e

go ve rn m en t di sa gr eed wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of t h e “i s st ol en ” an d

“ co nt rary to la w” te rm s of the st at ut e was a di rect ap pe al

, no t a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n. 8

W e ha ve reco gn iz ed th at th e no rm al st an da rd s fo r gr an ti ng Ru le 60 (b )(1 ) rel ie f

“ se em il l-s ui te d” to de te rm in in g whe n a pl ai nt iff who se co m pl ai nt ha s be en dism iss ed

“ sh ou ld be pe rm it te d, po st -jud gm en t, to try ag ai n.” Ro op , 5 5 9 F.3 d at 82 3. The

te ns io n is refl ect ed in se em in gl y in co ns is te nt op in io ns reg ard in g th e rel ev an ce of a pl ai nt iff ’s de la y i n se ek in g le av e to am en d. Num ero us cas es ha ve ru le d th at

“ [u ]nex cu se d de la y is su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e co ur t’s de ni al if th e pa rty is se ek in g to

am en d th e pl ead in gs aft er th e di st ric t co ur t ha s di sm is se d t h e c l a i ms it se ek s to

am en d, pa rti cu la rly w h e n t h e pl ai nt iff was pu t on no ti ce of th e ne ed to ch an ge th e pl ead in gs be fo re th e co m

pl ai nt was di sm is se d, bu t fai le d to do so .” Hor ras , 72 9 F.3 d

at 80 4, qu ot in g Mo se s.co m Sec., In c. v. Co m pr eh en si ve So ftwa re Sy s., In c., 40 6 F.3 d

10 52

, 10 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); se e Ham m er v. Ci ty of Osa ge Bea ch

, 31 8 F.3 d 83 2, 84 4
(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); In re Nati on sM art Co rp

. Sec. Li ti g., 13 0 F.3d 30 9, 32 2- 23 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 52 4 U.S. 92 7 (1 99 8)

. Tha t ru le ap p l i e s he re. The go ve rn m en t

kn ew m an y m on th s pr io r to th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l of th e po ss ib le ne ed to am en d it s pl ead in g an d el ect ed to “ st an d or fal l” on it s un te st ed le ga l th eo ry

. The go ve rn m en t

th en sp en t an ot he r th ree m on th s aft er th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l was en te red ur gi ng th e

c o u r t t o reco ns id er it s in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e be fo re fin al ly de ci di ng it w o u l d

at te m pt to pl ead aro un d th e in te rp ret iv e pr ob le m , rat he r th an ap pe al th is le ga l is su e.

Eve n if th e g o ve rn m en t pr es erv ed an ap pe al of th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l in 8

arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t in vi ti ng le av e to am en d, th e go ve rn m en t di d

no t ar gu e th es e im

po rta nt st at ut or y

is su es , so th ey

are fo rfei te d i n t hi s ca se

.

-1 0-In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , den ia l o f le av e to am en d was hard ly an ab us e of th e d is tri ct

co ur t’s su bs ta nt ia l po st -jud gm en t di sc ret io n. See, e.g ., Nati on sM art

, 13 0 F.3 d at 32 2-

23

.

On th e ot he r ha nd

, ot he r cas es ha ve st at ed th at a pl ai nt iff ’s no n- pr e ju d i c i al

de la y in se ek in g po st -d is m is sa l le av e to am en d is no t su ffi ci en t reas on to de ny le av e

to ad d a le ga l th eo ry or an ad di ti on al de fen da nt

, or to cu re a juri sd ic ti on al de fect

. See

Ro be rs on v. Hay ti Po li ce Dep ’t, 24 1 F.3 d 99 2

, 99 3- 94

, 99 5- 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 );

San de rs v. Cl em co In du s., 82 3 F.2 d 21 4

, 21 6- 17 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ); Bu de r v. Mer ril l
Ly nc h

, Pi erce , Fen ne r & Sm it h, In c., 64 4 F.2 d 69 0, 69 1- 92

, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ).

Alt ho ug h th e op in i o n s w ere br oa dl y wor de d, th es e cas es al l pr es en te d si tu at io ns
whe re th e am en dm en t was ne ed ed to affo rd pl ai nt iff “ an op po rtu ni ty to te st hi s cl ai m

o n t h e mer it s.” Fo m an v. Dav is

, 37 1 U.S. 17 8, 18 2 (1 96 2)

. Here, by co nt ras t, th e

Mu se um ’s de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n is st il l pe nd in g. W hi le th e go ve rn m en t’s

pr oc ed ur al in tra ns ig en ce c a u s e d th e di sm is sa l of th e pr oc ed ur e it pr efer red

, th e
di st ric t co ur t co ul d reas on ab ly as su m e th at th e Mu se um ’s cl ai m in th at pa ral le l act io n
wil l pr ov id e an op po rtu ni ty to “ te st th e m eri ts ” of whe th er th e Mas k is su bjec t to

fo rfei tu re u nd er 1 9 U.S.C. § 15 95 a.

Fi na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ de ni al of th e m ot io n

fo r le av e to am en d wit ho ut ex pl an at io n co ns ti tu te d a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n,” ci ti ng

Fo m a n , 3 7 1 U

. S

. at 18 2 (“ ou tri gh t refu sa l to gr an t th e le av e wit ho ut an y jus ti fy in g

reas on ap pe ari ng fo r th e de ni al is no t an ex erci se of di sc ret io n” ). Here, of co ur se , th e
di st ric t co ur t di d gi ve a reas on , den y in g l eav e to am en d fo r th e reas on s st at ed in it s

pr io r or de rs

. Our rev ie w of th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt co nf

irms th e ba si s fo r

th is ru li ng

. Para gr ap h 99 of th at pr op os ed pl ead in g al le ge d th at im po rta ti on of th e

Mas k vi ol at ed ei gh t di ffer en t fed eral

, st at e, an d fo rei gn la ws, in cl ud in g § 15 95 a an d

th e NSPA, “ [t]o th e ex te nt th at it is ne ces sa ry to in de pe nd en tl y es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e

of a pr ed ic at e of

fen se .” By n o st ret ch of th e im ag in at io n wou ld so m e of th e ci te d

la ws ha ve th e “ ne xu s to in te rn at io na l co m m erce ” th at th e Ord er of Dis m is sa l req ui red

-1 1-as a m at te r of la w. In ot he r wor ds

, t h e go ve rn m en t in th e pr op os ed am en de d

co m pl ai nt co nt in ue d to pl ead a cl ai m t h a t di d no t req ui re pr oo f th e Mas k was

“ in tro du ced in to th e Uni te d St at es co nt rary to la w,” on ly pr oo f th at

, at so m e ti m e in

th e di st an t pa st

, it was “ st ol en .” Thu s, as in Ro op , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n in de nyin g le av e to am en d be cau se th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt “ di d

no t cu re t he

. . . de fic ie nc ie s i n t he in it ia l Co m pl ai nt .” 55 9 F .3d at 8 24

.

W e affi rm th e or de rs of th e di st r i c t c o u rt an d gr an t th e Mu se um ’s m ot io n to

su pp le m en t t he reco rd on ap pe al

.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng

.

I co nc ur in th e co ur t's op in io n bu t writ e se pa rat el y to ex pr es s m y co nc ern ab ou t

wha t th e reco rd in th is cas e rev eal s ab ou t th e il l i ci t tra de in an ti qu it ie s. The

go ve rn m en t's m ot io n was u n t i mel y un de r Ru le 59 (e), an d I ag ree th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g po st jud gm en t reli ef un de r Ru le 60 (b ).

The go ve rn m en t was di la to ry an d fai le d to de m on st rat e "ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces "

at th is po in t of the cas e, Uni te d Stat es v. You ng , 80 6 F.2 d 80 5, 80 6 (8t h Cir. 19 86 ),

whi le th e m

us eu m 's d ecl arat or y

jud gm en t ac ti on is pe nd in g.

The su bs ta nt iv e is su es un de rlyin g th is li ti ga ti on are of gr eat si gn ifi can ce, an d

no t on ly to m

us eu m s whi ch res po ns ib ly se ek to bu il d th ei r co ll ect io ns

. The th eft of

cu lt ur al p a t r i mon y an d it s tra de on th e bl ack m ark et fo r st ol en an ti qu it ie s pr es en t

co nc ern s of in te rn at io na l im po rt. The se is su es affe ct go ve rn m e n t s a n d th e

in te rn at io na l art an d an ti qu it ie s m ark et s, as well as th os e who se ek t o s a f eg ua rd
gl ob al cu lt ur al he rit ag e. Beca us e of su ch co nc ern s th e Uni te d S ta te s h as els ewh ere
br ou gh t m

ul ti pl e ci vi l forf

ei tu re acti on s aga in st what ha ve be en id en ti fie d a s s to le n

an ti qu it ie s an d wor ks of art

. See, e.g .,Uni te d St at es v. An A n t i qu e Pl at te r of Gol d,

18 4 F .3d 13 1, 1 34 (2d Cir . 19 99 ) (i n re m civ il for fei tu re ac ti on bro ug ht in 19 95 ).

-1 2-I n t h i s mat te r th e Uni te d St at es at te m pt ed to br in g it s cl ai m un de r 19 U.S.C.
§ 1 59 5a wit ho ut pl ead in g a vi ol at io n of an y ot he r st at ut e su ch as th e Nati on al St ol en

Pro pe rty Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2 3 1 4 , a nd th us av oi di ng th e NSPA's kn owl ed ge

req ui rem en t. The go ve rn m en t ha s su cces sf ul ly us ed ci vi l fo rfei tu re in th e pa st to

reco ve r an ob

ject of cu lt ur al rel ev an ce wit ho ut pl ead in g a vi ol at io n of a "p red ic at e"

st at u t e

. See Uni te d St at es v. One Luc it e Bal l Co nt ai ni ng Lun ar Mat eri al

, 25 2 F.

Su pp . 2 d 13 67 , 1 37 9 (S.D. Fl a. 20 03 ) (g ov ern m en t m et pr ob ab le cau se bu rd en th at

m oo n roc k was "s to le n" un de r § 1 59 5a (c) b y de m on st rat in g t ha t Ho nd ur as ha d ti tl e

an d ha d no t au th or iz ed tra ns fer, ev en th ou gh th e ro ck ha d be en br ou gh t in to th e
Uni te d St at es )

. Here, th e go ve rn m en t pl ed in it s pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt th at

th e de al ers an d th e Sai nt Lou is Art M us eu m "k ne w or were wil lfu ll y bl in d" to fact s

in cl ud in g the Ma sk' s ow

ne rs hip by Egypt, in el ig ib il it y fo r pr iv at e own ers hi p, an d la ck

of a pr op er l ic en se

. 9

Eve n g oo d fai th pu rch as ers of art an d an ci en t art ifa ct s are req ui red to be

co ns ci en ti ou s reg ard in g pr ov en an ce. As th e Seco nd Ci rcu it no te d in U n i te d St at es

v. Dav is

, th e "i n n o c e n t o wne r" de fen se of th e Ci vi l Ass et Fo rfei tu re Refo rm Act
(CAFR A) is no t avai la bl e to cl ai m an ts un de r § 1 59 5a

. 64 8 F.3d 84 , 93 –9 5 (2 d C ir.

20 11 ). The dr aft ers o f C A FRA m ad e th e de li be rat e de ci si on to ex cl ud e su ch

cl ai m an ts fro m su ch a d e f e n s e

. The na tu re of ci vi l fo rfei tu re un de r § 1 59 5a is th at

ev en in no cen t own ers m ay ha ve to fo rfei t th ei r pr op ert y

. Id

. at 93

. CAFRA's dr aft ers
si m il arl y ex em

pt ed cu st om s act io ns fro m th at la w's m or e cl ai m an t fri en dl y bu rd en of

pr oo f. Id. at 95 –9 6.

In Dav is

, th e Seco nd Ci rcu it as s um ed wit ho ut de ci di ng th at a ne xu s to

in te rn at io na l co m

m erce is req ui red in a ci vi l fo rfei tu re act io n un de r § 1 59 5a

. Not in g

The m as k was so ld to th e m us eu m in 19 98 by Ph oe ni x Anc ie nt Art, S.A. The 9

pr op os ed am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge s th at th e o w n e rs , Ali an d Hich am Abo ut aam ,
were ea ch co nv ic te d i n 2 00 4 o f sm ug gl in g a nc ie nt art ifa ct s.

-1 3-th e st ren gt h of a li te ral in te rp ret at io n of th e st a t u t e , th e co ur t al so reco gn iz ed a

"s tro ng arg um en t" th at § 1 59 5a (c)'s co nt rary to la w la ng ua ge "m ean s ex act ly wha t it

sa y s: th e go ve rn m en t m ay se iz e an d fo rfei t m erch an di se th at is in tro du ced in to th e
Uni te d Stat es il le ga ll y , un la wfu ll y , or i n a m an ne r co nf li ct in g with es ta bl is he d law,

reg ard le ss of whe th er th e la w vi ol at ed rel at es to cu st om s enfo rcem en t." Dav is

, 64 8

F.3 d at 90

. As th e co ur t ack no wle dg es in th is cas e, th e NSPA pr ov id es a su ffi ci en t

ne xu s to in te rn at io na l co m m erce

. See Dav is

, 64 8 F.3 d at 90

. I th eref or e do no t ag ree

th at th e go ve r n ment fai le d to cu re it s pr io r co m pl ai nt 's de fic ie nc ie s by l is ti ng ot he r

st at ut es as we ll as t he NSPA in it s amend ed co m pl ai nt

.

W hi le th is cas e tu rn s on a pr oc ed ur al is su e, co ur ts are bo un d to reco gn iz e th at

th e il li ci t sa le of an ti qu it ie s po se s a co nt in ui ng th reat to th e pr es erv at io n of th e

wor ld 's in te rn at io na l cu lt ur al he rit ag e. Mu s eu m s an d ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s in th e

in te rn at io na l m ark et fo r art an d an ti qu it ie s ne ed to ex erci se cau ti on an d care in th ei r
de al in gs in or de r to pr ot ect th is he rit ag e an d to un d e rs ta nd th at th e Uni te d St at es

m ig ht ul ti m at el y

be ab le to reco ve r su ch pu rch as es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-