United States v. Thomas Grossi, Sr.

MEMORANDUM **

In June 2004, the government discovered that marijuana was being grown in an Oakland warehouse owned by Thomas Grossi, Sr., and commenced a civil forfeiture action against the property. See 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7). Albert Del Masso and Lauretta Weimer asserted that they were innocent owners who had loaned Grossi $250,000 and $100,000, respectively, and had security interests in the warehouse which the forfeiture could not reach. The parties agreed to sell the warehouse and substitute the purchase price, $608,916.58, for the res. In the meantime, the government charged and convicted Grossi of using his property to cultivate marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 856 (a), and sought a criminal forfeiture of his interest in the $608,916.58, see 21 U.S.C. § 853 (a)(2). The forfeiture actions were then consolidated.

*254 The government settled with Del Masso, agreeing that he should receive $250,000 plus $18,569.30 in interest. The district court determined that Weimer was an innocent owner and that the forfeiture should not apply to her interest. The court further determined that as of June 4, 2004 (the date the property was last used for criminal activity, see 21 U.S.C. § 853 (n)(6)),…

dissenting:

The district court entered a preliminary forfeiture order for the full forfeiture sales proceeds, then entered a final forfeiture order reducing the amount by $87,666.80. Grossi appealed the forfeiture; the government cross-appealed the reduction. We reversed the reduction but otherwise upheld the forfeiture, and we did so as explicitly as possible: “Grossi’s forfeiture is upheld. On Grossi’s appeal, AFFIRMED; on the government’s cross-appeal, REVERSED.”

It is hard to imagine how an appellate ruling could have been any clearer or more final. There was no remand, no equivocation, no directions for further proceedings, nothing left to be resolved. The forfeiture was upheld, period, except that the reduction in Grossi’s favor was disallowed.

When the case returned to the district court for implementation of our mandate, and despite having lost both his appeal and the government’s cross-appeal, Grossi took another stab at getting his $87,600 reduction. As Grossi himself put it, “The Court left open the question of whether the $87,600 interest is subject to forfeiture.” That is flatly wrong. There is no such opening. When our prior panel ruled that the reduction was…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 10-17821

D.C. CR 04-40127 DLJ

v.

MEMORANDUM *

THOMAS GROSSI, Sr.,

Claimant-Appellant, and

LAURETTA WEIMER;

ALBERT B. DEL MASSO,

Claimants, and

2638 MARKET STREET, OAKLAND,

CALIFORNIA; $608,916.58 IN U.S.

CURRENCY, as substitute RES for real property located at 2638 Market Street, Oakland, California,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Argued and Submitted February 16, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.**

In June 2004, the government discovered that marijuana was being grown in an

Oakland warehouse owned by Thomas Grossi, Sr., and commenced a civil forfeiture

action against the property. See 18…