United States v. $57,162 in United States Currency

Background

The Government filed a verified complaint seeking forfeiture of $57,162 in United States currency seized on February 15, 2019. It alleged that the currency was intended to be exchanged for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and/or was used or intended to be used to facilitate such an exchange, making it subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

The Government published notice of the forfeiture action for at least 30 consecutive days. After no claims or answers were filed, the Government moved for a forfeiture judgment, which was entered on October 31, 2019, according to the background section. The Government later learned that Jeremy Joseph Rosario had filed an administrative claim with the Drug Enforcement Administration but had not received the direct notice of the court case required by Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

The Government then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for relief from the forfeiture judgment and asked that Rosario be allowed to file a claim. The Government sent Rosario direct notice and gave him a deadline to file a claim. Rosario later sent communications asserting an interest in the currency, but the Government stated that the communications were not filed with the court, were not signed under penalty of perjury, and were late. The motion remained pending after the case was transferred to Judge Nathan, and the court repeatedly sought a status update from the Government.

Rule 60(b) Motion

Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for any other reason that justifies relief. The court explained that this provision gives trial courts broad discretion when extraordinary circumstances or substantial unfairness warrant relief, and that the motion must be made within a reasonable time.

The court agreed with the Government that justice required giving Rosario an opportunity to pursue a claim. The Government had failed to provide the required direct notice before the forfeiture judgment was entered, and that failure denied Rosario an opportunity to contest the forfeiture. The court found that the Government’s motion, filed within a month of the judgment, was made within a reasonable time.

Relief Granted and Filing Deadline

The court granted relief beyond the Government’s proposed deadline. Because the court had not ruled on the motion before that deadline passed, Rosario had never formally been relieved from the forfeiture judgment. The court concluded that denying him another opportunity would leave him bound by a judgment entered after the Government failed to comply with its notice obligations.

The court gave Rosario 35 days from service of the order to file a corrected verified claim. It warned that the case would be closed if he did not file a timely claim that complied with Rule G. The order did not determine the ultimate merits of the forfeiture claim.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the Government’s Rule 60(b) motion to relieve Rosario from the forfeiture judgment. The court denied as moot the Government’s request to establish a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss Rosario’s claim as deficient. The Government was ordered to serve Rosario with the order and its July 15, 2020 letter and to file proof of service on the public docket.