Opinion ID: 551508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Claimant's Motion for Continuance

Text: 22 Claimant next argues that the district court improperly denied its motion for a continuance of the forfeiture proceeding as it applied to the Building. On Leong originally moved under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a continuance of the summary judgment proceedings with respect to both the personal and real property seized by the government. It claimed that the pendency of the related criminal investigation made it impossible to obtain evidence with which to oppose the government's motion. The stay of discovery entered upon the filing of the complaint prevented On Leong from deposing Agents Ng and Whitmer. Those whom On Leong wished to depose purportedly feared risk of criminal prosecution. The district court denied claimant's motion as it applied to the Building after the parties agreed to a stay of forfeiture proceedings with respect to the contents of the Building. 23 On Leong claims that by deposing Agents Ng and Whitmer, it would have been able to cast doubt on the basis, scope, and accuracy of their statements. Amended Mem. in Support of Claimant's Rule 56(f) Motion at 5 n. 2. Claimant cryptically asserts that depositions, if allowed, could reveal that [the agents'] observation of the activities in the On Leong building    was not as clear cut as the government would have the court believe. Appellant's Brief at 40. Apparently claimant hopes to cast doubt on the credibility of the F.B.I. agents by deposing them. 24 The district court's denial of a Rule 56(f) motion will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Little Al, 712 F.2d 133, 135 (5th Cir.1983). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant's motion for a continuance in this case. This Circuit held in DF Activities Corp. v. Brown, 851 F.2d 920 (1988), that remote possibilities do not warrant subjecting the parties and the judiciary to proceedings almost certain to be futile. Id. at 922. Here, as in DF Activities, a party seeks to avoid the entry of an adverse judgment by raising the unlikely possibility that, upon further discovery, an adverse witness may contradict an earlier statement or volunteer an admission. Claimant never specified to the district court, nor does it identify on appeal, any information it realistically hopes to gain by deposing these adverse witnesses. Moreover, it seems unlikely that the sworn testimony of Agents Ng and Whitmer could be shaken so badly as to rebut the probable cause showing. Their affidavits are replete with detail about the facts constituting probable cause and the basis for their conclusions. This Court has noted that 25 Rule 56(f) is not a shield that can be raised to block a motion for summary judgment without even the slightest showing by the opposing party that his opposition is meritorious. A party invoking its protections must do so in good faith by affirmatively demonstrating why he cannot respond to movant's affidavits ... and how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact. 26 Korf v. Ball State University, 726 F.2d 1222, 1230 (1984) (emphasis added), quoting Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir.1975), certiorari denied, 424 U.S. 915, 96 S.Ct. 1116, 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976). Here claimant failed to specify any information it could produce by deposing either adverse witnesses or witnesses under its control. Similarly claimant did not demonstrate that it would discover facts sufficient to rebut the government's showing of probable cause. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing claimant's Rule 56(f) motion. 27 On Leong renews its argument for postponement of summary judgment proceedings on appeal by raising a host of what it characterizes as equitable arguments. These arguments focus on the issue of whether forfeiture of the entire Building was appropriate and fair in this case. Because none of the claimant's arguments were presented to the district court, they cannot furnish a basis for reversing the forfeiture order and remanding the case. It is well established that this Court will not consider issues on appeal not presented to the district court. Country Fairways, Inc. v. Mottaz, 539 F.2d 637, 642 (7th Cir.1976). This maxim has been applied to equitable issues raised in forfeiture cases. United States v. U.S. Currency in Amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d 555, 558 n. 6 (7th Cir.1988). 28 Even if claimant's arguments had been properly raised in the district court, they would not support a remand because they are based on misunderstandings of the relevant law. 29 Claimant argues vehemently, for example, that the district court should on remand exercise its discretion to order a proportional, rather than a total, forfeiture. Claimant believes that the language of the statute, which directs that property may be seized, vests discretion in district courts to order proportional forfeiture. 30 This Court has never held that district courts can mitigate forfeitures at their own discretion. In fact, in United States v. One 1958 Pontiac Coupe, 298 F.2d 421 (7th Cir.1962), we held that the statute authorizing mitigation petitions, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1618, vests exclusive jurisdiction over remission or mitigation of forfeitures for violations of customs laws in the executive branch. That case involved a violation of the Internal Revenue Act, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7302. But like that statute, the illegal gambling statute at issue in this case, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(d), incorporates the customs laws to govern the forfeiture process. 6 31 Claimant contends, in the alternative, that the district court lacked the power to forfeit the entire Building. It argues that this would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on disproportionate punishment. But courts uniformly have held that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to civil in rem actions, since they are remedial in nature and not punishments for crimes. United States v. One 107.9 Acre Parcel of Land Located in Warren Township, 898 F.2d 396, 400-401 (3rd Cir.1990); United States v. A Parcel of Land, 884 F.2d 41, 43-45 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Santoro, 866 F.2d 1538, 1543-1544 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Tax Lot 1500 Township 38 South, etc., 861 F.2d 232, 234-235 (9th Cir.1988), certiorari denied, Jaffee v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 364, 107 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). 32 Claimant's arguments about discretion and proportionality are different versions of the same complaint. At the core of On Leong's arguments is an assertion that it is unfair to seize an entire three-story building, especially one that is an historical landmark, on the basis of evidence of gambling confined to one area of the Building. Claimant's characterization of the gambling activity is not supported by the record, however. The gambling was not confined to any one small area in the Building. Law enforcement officials observed organized gambling games on two different floors of the Building, the second floor and the basement, on four separate occasions. At the last raid, on April 20, 1988, nearly one hundred people were present, suggesting that the Fan-Tan and Pai Gow games were set up in some sizeable room. The Building itself had been modified to harbor the gambling activity, as it was equipped with a camera and electronically-activated gates to monitor outsiders. These facts do not present a compelling picture of disproportionality. 33 Courts have previously held that entire buildings are subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(d). United States v. Premises and Real Property at 614 Portland Avenue, 846 F.2d 166 (2nd Cir.1988), affirming per curiam 670 F.Supp. 475 (W.D.N.Y.1987) (building and property not described); United States v. The South Half of Lot 7 and Lot 8, 910 F.2d 488 (8th Cir.1990) (forfeiture of 13 parcels of real estate, including buildings and residences); U.S. v. Various Denominations of Currency, 628 F.Supp. at 4 (forfeiture of Sportsman Tavern, a one-story masonry structure). The facts of this case establish that the gambling activity within the Building was not confined. Given the extent of the gambling activity, forfeiture of the entire Building was justified. 34 This case does not afford this Court an opportunity to decide the precise constitutional or statutory limits of permissible forfeiture under Section 1955(d). Some future case may present a compelling disproportionality claim. However, On Leong did not properly raise its equitable proportionality arguments, nor do the facts suggest that the district court ordered a forfeiture disproportionate to the illegal gambling activity. In these circumstances, claimant is not entitled to a reversal and a remand for further consideration of its proportionality arguments. 35