Cactil, LLC v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Cactil, LLC moved for leave to file a reply brief in support of its Rule 41(g) petition, arguing that the government’s opposition to related unsealing motions addressed the merits of the property claim. The court granted the motion, treating the government's opposition as the functional equivalent of a motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Rule 41(g) Petition granted“As the Court would generally allow a party to reply to a motion to dismiss, the Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Cactil’s Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that in the absence of pending criminal proceedings, a Rule 41(g) petition is treated as a civil complaint and the government's opposition as a motion to dismiss. Under standard civil procedure and local rules, a party is generally entitled to file a reply to a motion to dismiss. The court's decision to allow the reply is consistent with these procedural norms. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent from United States v. Ibrahim to classify the procedural posture of the Rule 41(g) petition. It accurately notes that the government's opposition functions as a motion to dismiss and that local rules permit a reply to such motions. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order granting leave to file a reply.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CACTIL, LLC d/b/a MyChargeBack.com, Case No.: 24cv1270-LL-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING CACTIL, LLC’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 41(g) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITION 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 23] 16 17 18 19 On August 23, 2024, Petitioner Cactil, LLC (“Cactil”) filed a Motion for Leave to 20 File a Reply in Support of its Rule 41(g) Petition.1 ECF No. 23. Cactil claims that the 21 parties were directed to file briefings regarding Cactil’s two motions to unseal [ECF No. 22 13], and in the government’s response to the motions to unseal, it also addressed Cactil’s 23 Rule 41(g) Petition on the merits. ECF No. 20. Cactil now requests leave to file a reply in 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 “Rule 41(g)” refers to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) regarding when “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of 28 1 ||support of its Rule 41(g) Petition to address the government’s response in opposition. 2 || ECF No. 23. 3 When there are no criminal proceedings pending at the time of filing, the Rule 41(g) 4 || motion is treated as a civil complaint governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 5 the government’s opposition to a Rule 41(g) motion is treated as the equivalent of a 6 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. United States v. Ibrahim, 7 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, □□□□□□ 8 Cir. 2003)). If the court cannot decide the matter on the pleadings, it must convert the 9 |}government’s opposition into a motion for summary judgment. /d. at 108. If the 10 |} government is unable to meet the summary judgment standard, “the motion for return of 11 || property (now being treated as a civil complaint) should not be dismissed at the summary 12 ||judgment stage, and the court should go forward with additional proceedings consistent 13 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” /d. 14 There is no indication that criminal proceedings were pending when the Rule 41(g) 15 || Petition was filed on July 22, 2024. Thus, the Court will treat the government’s opposition 16 |/as the equivalent of a motion to dismiss. /brahim, 522 F.3d at 1007. The Court notes that 17 || Cactil has not yet replied to the government’s opposition on the merits and only addressed 18 motions to unseal. ECF No. 21 at 2 n.1. As the Court would generally allow a party to 19 ||reply to a motion to dismiss, the Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Cactil’s Motion. 20 || See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(e)(3). Cactil may file a reply in support of its Rule 41(g) Petition 21 ||on or before September 5, 2024. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: August 26, 2024 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28