1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0777 

(JEI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPEARANCES:

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Peter W. Gaeta

970 Broad Street, Suite 700

Newark, NJ 07102

Counsel for Plaintiff

Irenas, Senior District Judge:

This matter involves the forfeiture of jewelry seized from 

Charles Hill during a motor vehicle stop. The Government has 

moved to strike Hill’s Answer and for entry of default judgment. 

For the following reasons, the Court will grant the Government’s 

motion.

I.

On January 18, 2010, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) 

seized jewelry valued at approximately $13,430.00 from would-be 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSORTED JEWELRY VALUED AT 

$13,430.00,

Defendant-In-Rem.

Case 1:11-cv-00777-JEI Document 6 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 42
2

Claimant, Charles Hill, during a motor vehicle stop in Atlantic 

City, New Jersey. (Verified Compl. [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 2) As part 

of administrative forfeiture proceedings regarding this jewelry, 

the DEA sent a Notice of Seizure by certified mail, return 

receipt requested to Hill. (Pl.’s Br. 2) The DEA received an 

administrative claim from Hill on May 13, 2010, which terminated 

the administrative proceedings. (Id.) The Government was 

required to file a judicial forfeiture complaint within 90 days. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). On August 10, 2010, the Court 

extended the Government’s time to initiate a judicial forfeiture 

until February 11, 2011. (Pl.’s Ex. A) The Government timely 

filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on February 9, 

2011 (Dkt. No. 1), and on the same day a Warrant for Arrest In 

Rem was filed. (Dkt. No. 2) 

On February 17, 2011, the Government filed and served a 

Notice of Forfeiture on Hill. (Dkt. No. 3) That Notice clearly 

stated that Hill had to file a verified claim pursuant to Rule 

G(5)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime 

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”) no 

later than March 24, 2011. (Id. at 1-2) Although Hill did not 

file a verified claim, he filed an Answer to the Government’s 

Complaint on March 9, 2011. (Dkt. No. 4) 

On November 21, 2012, the Government moved to strike Hill’s 

Answer pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) and for the entry of 

Case 1:11-cv-00777-JEI Document 6 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 43
3

default judgment. (Dkt. No. 5) The Government argues that Hill 

lacks statutory standing to pursue his claim, as he failed to 

comply with the procedures for contesting asset forfeiture. 

Hill has not filed an opposition to this Motion.

II.

To contest a forfeiture, a claimant must meet both Article 

III and statutory standing requirements. United States v. 

$487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007). 

“Statutory standing is a threshold issue that determines whether 

a party is properly before the court.” United States v. 

$8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 150 n.9 (3d Cir. 

2003). To satisfy statutory standing in a forfeiture case, the 

claimant must comply with the procedural requirements set forth 

in Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 983(a)(4)(A). $487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 664. 

Section 983(a)(4)(A) states that “any person claiming an 

interest in the seized property may file a claim asserting such 

person's interest in the property in the manner set forth in the 

Supplemental Rules.” Supplemental Rule G(5) requires a claimant 

to file a verified claim, which must “(A) identify the specific 

property claimed; (B) identify the claimant and state the 

claimant’s interest in the property; (C) be signed by the 

claimant under penalty of perjury; and (D) be served on the 

Case 1:11-cv-00777-JEI Document 6 Filed 02/28/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 44
4

government attorney.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(A)-(D). The claimant 

has to file the claim “by the time stated in a direct notice 

sent under Rule G(4)(b).” Id. G(5)(a)(ii)(A). The claimant 

then has twenty-one days within which he must file and serve his 

answer or motion under Rule 12. Id. G(5)(b). The Government 

may move to strike the claim or answer because the claimant 

failed to comply with these procedures or because the claimant 

lacks standing. Id. G(8)(c)(i).

III.

Hill has failed to meet the requirements of § 983(a)(4)(A) 

and Rule G(5). Hill has not filed a verified claim pursuant to 

Rule G(5), and his Answer cannot qualify as such a claim. See 

United States v. $140,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 09-3516, 2010 

WL 1704966, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2010). In addition to the 

fact that the statute and Rule G(5) contemplate the filing of an 

answer apart from the verified claim, Hill’s Answer itself does 

not meet any of the requirements of a verified claim. The 

Answer does not identify the specific property claimed, contains 

no indication of what Hill’s interest in the property is, and 

was not signed or verified by Hill. (See Dkt. No. 4) As the 

Third Circuit has noted, Rule G(5)’s requirements are “no mere 

procedural technicality.” $487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 665. 

Case 1:11-cv-00777-JEI Document 6 Filed 02/28/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 45
5

Because Hill has failed to meet these requirements, he lacks 

statutory standing, and the Court will strike his Answer.

In the absence of a verified claim or a valid answer to the 

Government’s Complaint, the Government is entitled to default 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). See id., 484 F.3d 

at 665 (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment for 

the Government where the would-be claimant failed to file a 

verified claim); $140,000.00, 2010 WL 1704966, at *4 (entering 

default judgment in favor of the Government where the would-be

claimants filed an answer without first filing a verified 

complaint). Thus, the Court will enter default judgment in 

favor of the Government and will order forfeiture of the jewelry 

to the Government.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the 

Government’s Motion to Strike the Answer of Would-Be Claimant 

Charles Hill and for Entry of Default Judgment. The Court will 

issue an appropriate Order.

Date: February 28, 2013

/s/ Joseph E. Irenas ______

Joseph E. Irenas, S.U.S.D.J.

Case 1:11-cv-00777-JEI Document 6 Filed 02/28/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 46