Upload
lillystein
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
1/7
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matters of the Search of4525 Julie Court, Richmond,
California and The Redwood Clinic,
3021 Telegraph Avenue, Suite C,
Berkeley, California
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David W. Penney, John R. Sordean,
Sigal Gafni, Irving Street Veterinary
Hospital, The Redwood Clinic;Desert Lake Trust,
Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
United States of America,
Defendant Appellee.
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
Nos. 07-15807 and 07-15808
D. C. No. 3-06-70431-MHP
REPLY TO APPELLEE USA
OPPOSITION TO
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION
TO TAX COSTS ANDATTORNEYS FEES
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellants The Redwood Clinic, Desert Lake Trust, and Sigal Gafni
filed the instant Motion to Tax Costs after the relief sought return of
property through Rule 41(g) procedure was obtained as a result of
Appellee's concession. Appellee, United States of America, filed Opposition
1
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
2/7
to Motion to Tax Cost which mislead by implication, whether intentionally
or by failure of familiarity with the basic facts of this case: The Assistant U.
S. Attorney's supporting Declaration created the impression that Appellants
had not prevailed as not all seized items had been returned. Replying to and
Supplementing the Motion to Tax Costs, Appellants incorporated Appellee's
prior written concession that all seized items were to be returned. No
contrary evidence has emerged.
On or around March 19, 2008, Appellees filed a supplemental
Opposition without supporting authority in violation of Federal Rules of
Court, Rule ___.1 The undersigned came to know of the existence of this
Opposition after being informed of it by a disinterested party. To date, the
undersigned has not been served with Appellee USA's supplemental
opposition.
II. FACTS
This appeal follows hearing which took place on a 41(g) motion
precipitated by search and seizure during execution of warrants which issued
upon information known from clear documentary evidence by the attesting
agent to be false. [CITATION] The district court, from the bench, directed
1 Appellee's Opposition to Supplemental Brief should be striken from the
record and disregarded.
2
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
3/7
the parties to meet and attempt to agree regarding which original documents
would be returned, and further directed the Appellants be provided copies of
any originals not returned. (Excerpt of Record: Page 15 of the transcript of
41(g) hearing of Jan 23, 2007.
Upon the parties meeting, Assistant U. S. Attorney Thomas Moore,
without good faith deliberation, refused to return any original Redwood
Clinic documents, Desert Lake Trust documents, or documents from Sigal
Gafni. Attorney Moore and the IRS further attempted to impose the cost of
the government's copying of documents the government's cost of
investigating Appellants - on Appellants. Attorney Moore refused to
provide either original or copies of any documents, as Appellants would not
agree to incur the cost of the investigation.
From the bench, the U. S. Attorney's office was requested to and
agreed to write an opinion consistent with the court's beach directives.
Appellants were at no time provided with a draft and opportunity to approve
or object to the proposed written order. The same did not comport with the
bench ruling, and was clearly inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent.
After Appellants filed the instant appeal but prior to the court's ruling,
Appellee returned all seized documents and things to the Redwood Clinic,
3
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
4/7
Desert Lake Trust, and Sigal Gafni.
III. LAW & ARGUMENT
A. Summary of Argument
Appellants The Redwood Clinic, Sigal Gafni, and Desert Lake Trust are
prevailing parties without regard to any dispute or discrepancy regarding the District
Court's order. The end result of institution of the 41(g) matter ultimately obtaining
through Appellee's concession, was the equitable return of property, a significant and
important aspect of the relief sought, which fact defines prevailing party according to
well-established 9th Circuit precedent. {CITATION}
B. Bench Rulings Have Force and Effect
The U.S. Attorney's dismissal of rulings from the bench as
inconsequential remarks, and claim that the transcript of the Court hearing is
not a part of the record, is unprecedented lunacy, [Legal authority that ruling
from bench is an order], and further disturbing as part of the accummulating
evidence of a climate in the U. S. Attorney's office of disregard for the rule
of law, both in the instant case and beyond.
C. Relief Requested Was Clear and Complete
A certified transcript of the 41(g) hearing before the lower court was
filed, and is a part of the record on appeal. Therein, the directives of Judge
4
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
5/7
Patel to the parties from the bench, ordering them to perform certain actions
is unquestionable. Likewise the Appellants Brief clearly and plainly
delineated the full scope of relief requested, both from the lower court and
on appeal, including resolution of the discrepancy between the ruling from
the bench and the order written by the US Attorney's office {Appellant's
Brief, page ___, line ___}, and the equitable return of property. {Appellant's
Brief, page ___, line ___}. Appellee cannot now be heard to claim surprise.
D. Appellants Success in ObtainingReturn of Seized Property
Defines Them as Prevailing Parties
The spurious arguments presented in Appellee's Supplemental
Opposition do not inform or change the fact that Appellants herein
prevailed.2
Notwithstanding that the record on appeal is complete and clear as to
Appellants' substantive arguments regarding discrepancy in the lower court's
ruling; notwithstanding that Appellee had due and timely notice of these
arguments; and notwithstanding closeted briefing in the instant appeal and
2. Appellee's argument that the District Court's ruling requires denial of
recovery of fees and costs ignores the requirement of finality of judgment
and the fact of the instant appeal.
5
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
6/7
dismissal afterthe return of property was effected,3 the undeniable fact is
that Appellants hereto prevailed in their quest to obtain relief through return
of their seized property. By definition of law, Appellants prevailed.
IV. SUMMARY
A certified transcript, prepared by the District Court approved Court
Reporter who attended the 41(g) Motion for the Equitable Return of
Property, was duly filed with the Appellate Court, is part of the record on
appeal, and is relevant and consequential. From this and indeed, the full
record on appeal, Plaintiffs/Appellants requested relief is and always has
been plain, clear, and obvious from the record. Appellants petitions to the
lower court and on appeal always included the request for the equitable
relief the court is authorized to provide through a 41(g) proceeding the
return of seized property. As a consequence of this litigation, Appellants did
obtain the requested relief, and are prevailing parties. Accordingly,
Appellants request to tax fees and costs should be granted.
Dated: April 5, 2008
3. But for Appellee's mooting of the issue by returning the property, The
only result supported by law, if not required to avoid an unconstitutional
taking without due process and compensation, would have been the
equitable return of property.
6
8/14/2019 Prevailing Party & Fees
7/7
7