Court Opinion

ID: 9438770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:01:51.056953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:54.405685
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
This is my take on a case that has a complicated history. The U.S. Government seized the Kim Claimants’ assets, and DAS and Optional filed separate answers to the Government’s civil forfeiture complaints. Our previous memorandum disposition dismissed the Government’s claims against the Kim Claimants’ assets, but did not resolve DAS and Optional’s competing claims to the “Summary Judgment Properties.” See United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 298 Fed.Appx. 545 (9th Cir.2008). As we stated in United States v. Real *160Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.2008), the district court retains jurisdiction over the res and has the duty to resolve the parties’ competing claims to the res, even when the district court dismisses the Government’s Complaint. Therefore, we l'emand to the district court to resolve DAS and Optional’s competing claims to the “Summary Judgment Properties” because the district court has not yet resolved this issue.