United States of America v. $999,830.00 in United States Currency

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
MICHAEL SIMARD,
Claimant - Appellant,
v.
$999,830.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.
No. 11-15528
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00086-KJD-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 9, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Michael Simard appeals the district court’s order striking his claim to
$999,830 in this civil forfeiture proceeding and the district court’s denial of his
FILED
AUG 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
motion for reconsideration of that order. The district court concluded that Simard
lacked Article III standing, struck his claim and entered judgment in favor of the
government. The district court also denied his motion for reconsideration. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.
The district court erred in granting the motion to strike by applying the
standard of proof for a claimant asserting a possessory, rather than an ownership,
interest in property. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, “[a]t the motion to dismiss
stage, a claimant’s unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is
sufficient by itself to establish standing.” United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S.
Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2012). A claimant asserting a mere
possessory interest must do more, and explain their possession of the property. Id.
Simard introduced a sworn declaration in support of his claim “asserting a legal
right and ownership interest in the monies seized from me.” This unequivocal
assertion of ownership establishes Article III standing at this stage of proceedings.
The disclaimer form and statements allegedly made by Simard during the
traffic stop, and relied upon by the district court, may be relevant evidence at such
time as a motion for summary judgment is filed. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at
638-39. However, that evidence is not properly weighed against Simard’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
unequivocal assertion of ownership for determining the existence of Article III
standing at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Because we hold that the district court erred in striking his claim, Simard’s
appeal of his motion for reconsideration of that determination is moot.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --