United States v. The M/Y Amadea

Background

The United States seeks forfeiture of the Amadea, a motor yacht, alleging that it is beneficially owned by Suleiman Kerimov, whom the Government says is subject to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd. contest the forfeiture and claim to be the yacht’s actual owners. The yacht was seized in Fiji in or around April 2022 and is located in San Diego, California.

The Government moved to sell the yacht before the case ended. The Claimants requested expedited discovery related to that motion, arguing that the seizure in Fiji may have violated the Fourth Amendment. On February 22, 2024, the court denied that request, concluding that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply extraterritorially—outside the United States—at least in the circumstances described by the governing decisions.

Motion for Reconsideration

The Claimants moved for reconsideration of the February 22 order. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling authority, evidence, or data that could reasonably change its decision. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.

The Claimants challenged the Government’s reliance on United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez and argued that the relevant Supreme Court opinion was not controlling. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the Second Circuit had interpreted Verdugo-Urquidez as holding that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to extraterritorial law-enforcement actions, at least when the defendant is a citizen and resident of another country with no voluntary attachment to the United States and the search occurs abroad. The court also noted that the Claimants cited no contrary authority, including any case invalidating a search or seizure in comparable circumstances.

The Claimants separately argued that the seizure was unlawful because a Fijian court relied on a warrant issued in the United States without conducting an independent analysis. The court found that this argument also lacked supporting authority and presented a new theory rather than identifying overlooked binding law.

Interlocutory Appeal

In the alternative, the Claimants asked the court to certify the February 22 order for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That statute allows a district court to identify an otherwise nonappealable order for possible immediate review when it presents a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation.

The court concluded that the Claimants had not shown a substantial ground for disagreement about their Fourth Amendment argument. It therefore declined to certify the February 22 order for interlocutory appeal.

Disposition

Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that the Claimants’ motion be DENIED and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.