United States v. Optional Capital, Inc.

Good Law
596 F. App'x 592
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 201513-56823California554 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Optional Capital, Inc. (“Optional”) appeals the district court’s order denying (1) Optional’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAF-RA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2465 (b)(1)(A), and (2) Optional’s motion for attorney’s fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 (a)(2). We affirm. 1. Optional is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under CAFRA, because it was not the prevailing party “in any civil proceeding to forfeit property.” 28 U.S.C. § 2465 (b)(1)(A). Our prior rulings in this case indicate that, after the Government lost its forfeiture claim against properties seized from the Kim Claimants, the district court adjudicated Optional’s claims to the properties in a separate in rem proceeding. See United States v. Real Prop. Located at 175 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1184, 1144-46 (9th Cir.2008); United States v. DAS Corp., 406 Fed.Appx. 154, 159-60 (9th Cir.2010). By the time Optional obtained ownership of the properties in the separate proceeding, the Government had been dismissed from the case and its forfeiture claims had been defeated by the Kim Claimants. After the forfeiture proceedings were concluded, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.