Free Order on Motion to Expedite - 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 AND OPINION [Re: Motion at docket 101]

I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 101, the United States of America ("USA") moves the court to order an interlocutory sale of defendants Agusta Helicopter, Model A109E, Serial Number 11116, Mexican Registration Number XA-TSR, and Cessna Caravan, Model 208B, Serial Number 208B-0941, Mexican Registration Number XA-TUF. The USA requests that the court set September 12, 2005, as the deadline for filing objections to its motion. Oral argument has not been requested and would not assist the court. II. DISCUSSION In the court's order at docket 94, it held that, for two reasons, the forfeiture action against defendants Agusta Helicopter and Cessna Caravan should not proceed in this court. The first reason is that the court does not have in rem jurisdiction over them.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 102

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 1 of 3

The second reason is that the District of Arizona is not the proper venue for maintaining a forfeiture action against them. The USA has moved for reconsideration of the court's order and challenges the court's conclusions on both jurisdiction and venue. The USA represents that the aircraft are now in the physical custody of Mexican government officials. Based on that representation, the court may reconsider its decision on the jurisdictional question. However, the USA has not offered any evidence to show that the court's venue ruling was wrong. If the court reconsiders its decision on jurisdiction but not venue, it will remedy the venue problem by transferring the action against defendants Agusta Helicopter and Cessna Caravan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.1 Because that court most likely will decide the claims against those aircraft, it should have the opportunity to consider whether they should be sold before it reaches its decision. Accordingly, this court is unlikely to be the court which decides whether to order the interlocutory sale of defendants Agusta Helicopter and Cessna Caravan. The court is concerned that requiring a response to the motion for interlocutory sale might prompt a request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for reconsideration (now due September 12, 2005). The court is interested in getting that motion decided promptly. Accordingly, it appears inadvisable to task opposing counsel with additional briefing responsibilities at this time.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(2).

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 102

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 2 of 3

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, the motion at docket 101 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after the court rules on the motion for reconsideration. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 29th day of August 2005.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 102

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 3 of 3