Atlantic Investments, LLC v. United States
Atlantic Investments, LLC v. United States
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Atlantic Investments, LLC and its sole owner and manager Joseph Khalifian (collectively “Atlantic”) appeal an order of the district court granting the Government’s motion to dismiss Atlantic’s civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment as moot. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Bd. of Trs. of the Constr. Laborers’ Pension Trust for S. Cal. v. M.M. Sundt Constr. Co., 37 F.3d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment, see Lindsey v. Shalmy, 29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994).
We have held that “when a civil forfeiture proceeding has been filed, the claimant has adequate remedies to challenge any [constitutional] violation. Accordingly, when a civil forfeiture proceeding is pending, there is no need to fashion an equitable remedy to secure justice for the claimant.” United States v. U.S. Currency, $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1988). The claimant in $83,310.78, like Atlantic, filed her complaint
Atlantic additionally claims that it was deprived of due process of law when the civil action was transferred from one district judge to another judge of the same court pursuant to the Central District of
Atlantic’s motion for judicial notice
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
. The claimant in $83,310.78 filed a Rule 41(e) motion, not a complaint. This distinction is immaterial because we treat a Rule 41(e) motion filed in the absence of a criminal case as a civil complaint seeking equitable relief. See United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1987).
. Because the district court dismissed Atlantic’s civil action on jurisdictional grounds, the dismissal does not bar Atlantic from raising its constitutional challenges in the civil forfeiture proceeding. See Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004), aff'd, U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2606, 162 L.Ed.2d 544 (2005).
. Atlantic styled its motion as a request to supplement the record, but we construe it as a motion for judicial notice.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- ATLANTIC INVESTMENTS, LLC v. UNITED STATES of America
- Status
- Published