UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AKA Seal A v. CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AKA
Seal A,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim,
AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon
Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL
CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional
Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE,
INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA
INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM;
YOUNG AI KIM,
Claimants-Appellees,
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG,
Intervenor-Appellee,
and
475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located
at, AKA Seal A,
Defendant.
No. 12-56922
D.C. No.
2:04-cv-02788-
ABC-PLA

-- 1 of 4 --

UNITED STATES V. KIM 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim,
AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon
Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL
CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional
Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE,
INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA
INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM;
YOUNG AI KIM,
Claimants-Appellees,
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC
HONIG,
Intervenors-Appellees,
and
475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located
at, AKA Seal A,
Defendant.
No. 13-55555
D.C. No.
2:04-cv-02788-
ABC-PLA

-- 2 of 4 --

UNITED STATES V. KIM 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim,
AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon
Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL
CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional
Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE,
INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA
INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM;
YOUNG AI KIM,
Claimants-Appellees,
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC
HONIG,
Intervenors-Appellees,
and
475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located
at,
Defendant.
No. 13-55556
D.C. No.
2:04-cv-02788-
ABC-PLA
ORDER
Filed November 30, 2015
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith,
and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

-- 3 of 4 --

UNITED STATES V. KIM 4
ORDER
The Opinion filed August 13, 2015, is amended as
follows:
Slip opinion page 19: after <we see no reason to place
statutory attorney’s fees awards beyond the reach of the Act.>
add the following as a footnote: <Jurisdiction over claims
against the United States is generally given to the Court of
Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491(a).
Nevertheless, although we concluded that CAFRA fee awards
are claims against the United States, jurisdiction over them is
expressly given to the district courts. See 18 U.S.C. § 983;
§ 28 U.S.C. 2465.>
With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously
to deny the motion of Americans for Forfeiture Reform for
sua sponte rehearing en banc and for court appointment as
amicus curiae. The motion is DENIED as moot.
On October 2, 2015, the parties to this case filed a Notice
of Settlement. In the Notice, the parties requested that this
court’s mandate be issued. We GRANT the parties’ request;
therefore, no further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en
banc may be filed in response to the amended petition.
A certified copy of this order shall constitute the mandate
of this court.

-- 4 of 4 --