Opinion ID: 2813647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nugen’s Article III Standing

Text: On appeal, Nugen argues it has Article III standing, based on its (1) acquisition of legal title to the Audi, (2) financial stake in the Audi under the purported transaction with Henry, and (3) alleged right to repossess the Audi after Henry defaulted on his payments. The government responds Hue, not Nugen, is the true owner of the Audi, and Nugen stands to lose only bare title, which is insufficient to confer standing. In the context of third-party claims to criminally forfeited property, we review a district judge’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Shefton, 548 F.3d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 2008). “Criminal forfeiture proceedings are governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.” United States v. Davenport, 668 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2012). A party to a § 853(n) ancillary forfeiture proceeding may move for 5 Case: 14-14522 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Page: 6 of 18 summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(B). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986). “Standing is a threshold issue that is subject to de novo review.” United States v. Weiss, 467 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006). “If a claimant lacks Article III standing to challenge a forfeiture, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim.” Id. at 1308. Standing consists of three elements: (1) the party claiming standing must have suffered an “injury in fact,” an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be some causal connection between the injury and the complained-of conduct; and (3) it must be likely, not just speculative, the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing all three elements. Id. at 561, 112 S. Ct. at 2136. “At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from a defendant’s conduct may suffice”; in 6 Case: 14-14522 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Page: 7 of 18 responding “to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true.” Id. at 561, 112 S. Ct. at 2137 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). At its core, Article III standing requires the existence of injury, not ownership. See Via Mat Int’l S. Am. Ltd. v. United States, 446 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2006). “A claimant need not own the property in order to have standing to contest its forfeiture; a lesser property interest, such as a possessory interest, is sufficient for standing.” United States v. $38,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1987). We have explained “[o]wnership of property that has been seized can be evidence of the existence of an injury that is direct enough to confer standing.” Via Mat Int’l S. Am. Ltd., 446 F.3d at 1262. “The economic harm to a party with a possessory interest in seized property, imposed by virtue of its liability to the owner of such property, can constitute a palpable injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III.” Id. at 1263. Nevertheless, “straw owners and persons who might have unknowingly been in possession of property that is seized do not necessarily suffer an injury that is sufficient to demonstrate standing.” Id. at 1262 n.5 (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, a person found to be acting as a nominee for others whose property is subject to forfeiture cannot have a vested 7 Case: 14-14522 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Page: 8 of 18 interest in the property. Weiss, 467 F.3d at 1303 n.1. “Nominee connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in, or ownership of, the rights of the person nominating him.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have explained district judges “cannot decide disputed factual questions or make findings of credibility essential to the question of standing on the paper record alone but must hold an evidentiary hearing.” Bischoff v. Osceola Cnty., Fla., 222 F.3d 874, 879 (11th Cir. 2000); see also id. at 881-82 (determining the district judge improperly weighed conflicting affidavits to determine the plaintiffs lacked standing). Instead, “a district court should resolve disputed factual issues either at a pretrial evidentiary hearing or at trial.” Id. at 879. State law determines the nature of a claimant’s interest in forfeited property. See Shefton, 548 F.3d at 1364 (applying state law to determine the nature of a claimant’s interest in forfeited property for § 853(n)(6)(A) purposes). In Georgia, a certificate of title to a vehicle is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it. O.C.G.A. § 40-3-24(c). Consequently, “[t]he certificate is not the title or ownership itself but only evidence of it.” Owensboro Nat’l Bank v. Jenkins, 328 S.E.2d 399, 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). “A cardinal precept of corporate law is that corporations are separate entities from their shareholders, officers, directors, and 8 Case: 14-14522 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Page: 9 of 18 employees,” even when the “corporation is owned solely by one person.” Dep’t of Transp. v. McMeans, 754 S.E.2d 61, 63 (Ga. 2014). The record in this case contains conflicting evidence, which the district judge weighed to determine Nugen lacked Article III standing. On one hand, Nugen holds title to the Audi, which is prima facie evidence Nugen owns it. See Via Mat Int’l S. Am. Ltd., 446 F.3d at 1262 (explaining ownership interest in property can be evidence of injury sufficient to confer standing); Jenkins, 328 S.E.2d at 402. On the other hand, (1) the bill of sale lists Hue, rather than Nugen, as purchaser of the Audi; (2) Hue testified at his deposition he did not think about why he titled the Audi in Nugen’s name; and (3) the Audi also was insured in Hue’s name. See McMeans, 754 S.E.2d at 63. While the district judge did not make a credibility determination, he improperly “weigh[ed] the evidence and determine[d] the truth of the matter” and concluded the contradictory evidence rebutted Nugen’s prima facie evidence of ownership. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. at 2511; Bischoff, 222 F.3d at 879. Although this is a close case, on balance, we conclude Nugen provided sufficient evidence of an ownership interest in the Audi and injury resulting from its forfeiture to confer standing, at least at the summary judgment stage. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S. Ct. at 2136; Via Mat Int’l S. Am. Ltd., 446 F.3d at 1262-63. Nugen supported its claim of ownership with citation to specific 9 Case: 14-14522 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Page: 10 of 18 record evidence, the certificate of title. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S. Ct. at 2136. Moreover, Hue did not specify whether Henry had agreed to make the monthly payments to Hue personally or to Nugen. The best reading of Hue’s deposition testimony is Henry agreed to make his monthly payments to Hue personally, because Hue paid for the Audi with personal funds; nevertheless, his deposition testimony does not foreclose the possibility Nugen received the payments. There is at least some support in the record for Nugen’s assertions it owned the Audi and suffered an economic injury, because of forfeiture of the Audi. Therefore, we conclude Nugen made a sufficient showing of injury at the summary judgment stage to confer Article III standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S. Ct. at 2136; Via Mat Int’l S. Am. Ltd., 446 F.3d at 1262-63.