Page | 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT FOR THE ...

establish standing” at the pretrial motion phase). Summary judgment, partial
summary judgment, or judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Government is not
appropriate on the record now before the Court. 6
What the evidence at trial establishes as to the true source and proper disposition
of the property is another issue entirely. The Davises appear to have dramatic financial
problems, meager assets, and staggering liabilities post-bankruptcy, raising commonsense
questions as to how they could have accumulated $305,000 in cash as of the date
of the traffic stop (and be the lawful owners of the currency and tractor-trailer). But the
Court finds that the Davises have standing to contest the forfeiture, and thus the Court
DENIES the Government’s motion to strike, for judgment on the pleadings, or for
summary judgment.
F. Conclusion
For all the reasons delineated above, the Court DENIES Claimants’ motion to
suppress (Doc. 15) and DENIES the Government’s motion to strike, for judgment on
the pleadings, or for summary judgment (Doc. 24). Bench trial remains set April 8,
2013, with a final pretrial conference on March 22, 2013. Resolution of the suppression
motion triggers the lifting of the discovery stay, pursuant to the terms of Magistrate
Judge Williams’ Order (Doc. 20).
6 The undersigned Judge is cognizant that discovery has not been completed
herein, and in fact has been stayed pending resolution of the suppression motion. This
case is procedurally unlike cases where summary judgment was properly granted in civil
forfeiture proceedings after discovery was complete, a full record was before the court,
and the claimant did not dispute the material facts presented by the Government in
support of summary judgment. See, e.g., Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy
Dollars, 403 F.3d at 452-55.
Page | 27