United States v. $3,124,977.28 in U.S. Currency

MEMORANDUM *

New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”) appeals the district *337 court’s denial of its motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The facts are known to the parties and are not repeated here except as necessary. We review the district court’s denial of New Century’s Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004). The district court could, in its discretion, properly deny the motion “if (1) the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default, (2) the defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the [opposing party] would be prejudiced if the judgment [were] set aside.” Price v. Seydel, 961 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because we conclude that New Century had no meritorious defense to the underlying forfeiture, 1 we affirm the district court’s denial of New Century’s Rule 60(b) motion.

First, New Century argues that it qualified as an innocent owner as defined in the statute of forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d), and therefore had a complete defense to forfeiture of its secured interest in the property. The statute further defines an “innocent…