Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. LEAR JET, et al., Defendants. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV 04-363 PHX JWS ORDER FROM CHAMBERS [Re: Motion at docket 68]

I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 68, the United States of America ("USA") moves the court to order an interlocutory sale of defendant Lear Jet, Model 31A, Serial Number 31A-224, U.S. Registration Number N224LJ. At docket 85, claimants Alberto Abed-Schebaikan; Calezar, Ltd.; and Uptongrove, Ltd. ("Abed-Schebaikan claimants") respond to the USA's motion. At docket 87, claimant Bombardier Capital, Inc., ("Bombardier") also responds to the USA's motion. Oral argument has not been requested and would not assist the court. II. DISCUSSION The USA asserts that defendant Lear Jet is subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A). That statute adopts the forfeiture procedures of the customs laws, 19

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 3

U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.1 Under those laws, the court should order the sale of an aircraft if its value will be greatly decreased by keeping it in storage, or if the expense of storing it is disproportionate to its value.2 A court-ordered sale of an aircraft is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2004, which provides that "[a]ny personalty sold under any order or decree of any court of the United States shall be sold in accordance with [28 U.S.C. § 2001], unless the court orders otherwise." 28 U.S.C. § 2001 provides that a court "shall" order a public sale, but it "may" order a private sale if that would be in the parties' best interest.3 The USA represents that the value of defendant Lear Jet will decrease if it is kept in storage and that the cost of storing the aircraft is becoming disproportionate to its value, and, therefore, argues that the aircraft should be sold either at a public auction or through a private sale. Claimant Bombardier agrees that the aircraft should be sold and suggests that it be sold at a public auction. The Abed-Schebaikan claimants state that they "are interested in an [i]nterlocutory sale,"4 but question whether an appropriate purchase price will be obtained if the court orders a private sale. After considering the parties' briefing, the court concludes that it is in their best interest to sell defendant Lear Jet. Neither Bombardier nor the Abed-Schebaikan claimants seriously challenges the USA's representation that keeping the aircraft in storage is bad for the aircraft and expensive in relation to its value. Although the parties
1

18 U.S.C. § 981(d). 19 U.S.C. § 1612. 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b). Doc. 85 at 3.

2

3

4

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 3

agree that the aircraft should be sold, it is clear from their briefing that attempting to set the terms of a private sale would lead to much dissension. Therefore, the court will order that defendant Lear Jet be sold at a public auction under 28 U.S.C. § 2001(a), but on the condition that the USA file a proposed order for public sale with the court for its consideration. The court has a copy of the USA's proposed order for private sale, but if the USA filed a proposed order for public sale, it was not received in chambers. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, the motion at docket 68 is GRANTED on the condition that the USA file a proposed order for public sale with the court in Phoenix, Arizona. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 23rd day of August 2005.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 3 of 3