Opinion ID: 694981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Zybach 14 Zybach's deposition and sentencing documents, on which the district court relied, do not clearly demonstrate that Zybach gave the Tiburon Note to Emmanuel or that the parties to the stipulation so understood. Instead, Zybach's and Emmanuel's depositions, and the sentencing documents, indicate 1) that Zybach has an interest in the note and 2) that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the nature of the transaction between Zybach and Emmanuel. Zybach must be permitted to intervene and to attempt to prove that the stipulation should be construed in his favor; that he or his corporation owns the note; and that the note is an asset held outside of the United States. Emmanuel 15 Of course, a claimant's self-serving testimony may serve as sufficient evidence on which to rest an opposition to summary judgment. United States v. Lot 4, Block 5 of Eaton Acres, 904 F.2d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 1990). The government, however, argues that the district court granted the government's motion not because of the form of Emmanuel's opposition, but rather because it found Emmanuel's testimony utterly incredible. To the extent the court found Emmanuel's affidavit incredible, it did so on the basis of Emmanuel's twelve-year relationship with Zybach. However, Emmanuel's relationship with Zybach is not dispositive. Certainly Zybach's knowledge cannot be imputed to Emmanuel. That an unsophisticated woman might lack knowledge of her partner's financial dealings is not beyond probability. A rational trier of fact could find Emmanuel's testimony credible. See U.S. v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 113 S. Ct. 1126 (1993) (government's motion for summary judgement denied in case where claimant who obtained funds to purchase house from her drug-dealer boyfriend supported her opposition with only personal affidavit). 16 Finally, the government argues that Emmanuel's affidavit is utterly incredible based on the fact that she lied on several other occasions. However, the deposition testimony cited by the government does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that Emmanuel lied; neither does Agent Schmidt's belief that Emmanuel lied (as evidenced by his affidavit) inexorably lead to that conclusion. Even if Emmanuel's testimony is hardly overwhelming, she must be given the opportunity to present her evidence to a jury. See Eaton Acres, 904 F.2d at 492. Lawrence 17 Although Lawrence concedes that the government had probable cause to seek forfeiture, he too seeks to retain his property pursuant to the innocent owner's defense. The government has conceded that there is nothing to implicate Mr. Lawrence in any of his sister's marijuana smuggling activities. Nonetheless, the district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the recordation of the [government's] lis pendens [prior to the recordation of Lawrence's deed] provided Clive Lawrence with constructive notice that he dealt with this property at his peril. Lawrence obtained the Bellflower Ranch from Emmanuel before the government filed either its complaint or lis pendens against the property. However, Lawrence did not record his deed until after the government had already filed its lis pendens. 18 In U.S. v. Real Property at 10936 Oak Run Circle, 9 F.3d 74 (9th Cir. 1993), we held that summary judgment was inappropriate even though the claimed innocent owners both obtained and recorded their deeds after the government filed its lis pendens. Instead, we found the question whether the owners had knowledge of the origin of the property in drug proceeds to be a question of fact for the jury. Lawrence must be given the opportunity to present his evidence to a jury. 19 We REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.