United States Ninth Circuit

In an asset forfeiture case interpreting the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), dismissal of a civil forfeiture complaint is reversed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 983(a)(3)(A) authorizes district courts to grant ex parte extensions of time to file civil forfeiture complaints; and 2) district courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate competing claims to seized property even after the underlying civil forfeiture action has been dismissed.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/09/2008
• Decided 10/03/2008
• Published 10/03/2008

Judges

• THOMAS, Circuit Judge:, Before:  STEPHEN S. TROTT, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Ralph Rogari, Rehm & Rogari, Los Angeles, CA;  William K. Mills and Michael K. Zweig, Parker Mills Morin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the claimants-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• John E. Lee and Monica E. Tait, Assistant United States Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee., Eric S. Honig, Law Office of Eric Honig, Marina Del Rey, CA, for the claimants-appellees-cross-appellants.