United States v. The M/Y Amadea
United States v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing International Maritime Organization No. 1012531, Including All Fixtures, Fittings, Manuals, Stocks, Stores, Inventories, and Each Lifeboat, Tender, and Other Appu
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
United States v. The M/Y Amadea: Judge Ho denied expedited discovery and denied a motion to dismiss as moot after an amended complaint.
Claimants Eduard Yurievich Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd.; the United States as the forfeiture plaintiff; and the M/Y Amadea, whose proposed interlocutory sale was addressed.
What happened
In United States v. The M/Y Amadea, the United States sought to take ownership of the yacht through a civil forfeiture case. The claimants, Eduard Yurievich Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd., asked for expedited discovery related to the yacht’s seizure in Fiji and moved to dismiss the original complaint.
The court denied expedited discovery. It explained that the claimants had not shown why the Fourth Amendment would apply to the seizure in Fiji, and therefore they could not use discovery to develop that argument for purposes of the government’s proposed sale of the yacht.
The court also denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot because the government had filed an amended complaint. Judge Dale E. Ho directed the Clerk of Court to close the two motions.
The detailed version
- United States v. The M/Y Amadea · No. 1:23-cv-09304
- Ho
- Feb. 22, 2024
Background
The United States brought a civil forfeiture action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 983 concerning the M/Y Amadea, including its listed fixtures, equipment, supplies, lifeboats, tenders, and other appurtenances. Claimants Eduard Yurievich Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd. moved to dismiss the original complaint.
The government separately asked for permission to sell the yacht while the forfeiture case was pending, arguing that its maintenance costs were excessive. The claimants sought expedited discovery concerning that proposed sale. They argued that the yacht’s seizure in Fiji may have violated the Fourth Amendment because an FBI agent’s affidavit supporting the seizure might contain false or misleading statements about the yacht’s ownership. They requested an unredacted affidavit and documents used to prepare it.
Expedited discovery
The court denied the claimants’ request for expedited discovery. It relied on precedent stating that the Fourth Amendment, including its warrant requirement, generally does not apply outside the United States in the circumstances described by that precedent, involving a person who is a citizen and resident of another country without a voluntary attachment to the United States.
The court stated that the claimants’ written submissions and oral argument gave it no reason to conclude that the Fourth Amendment applied to the yacht’s seizure in Fiji. The court also found that a case cited by the claimants did not require a different result because that case involved an account located in New York City.
Motion to dismiss
The court denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot because the government had filed a First Amended Complaint on February 16, 2024. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the government’s forfeiture claim or the claimants’ ownership-related arguments in this order.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the request for expedited discovery and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions filed at ECF Nos. 25 and 38.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.