Background
Misleidy Ibarra appealed the district court’s orders denying her motion for an extension of time to respond to a government motion to dismiss her motion to set aside forfeiture. The forfeiture stemmed from her husband’s guilty plea to healthcare fraud conspiracy, which required the forfeiture of property located in Florida. Ibarra filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture five years after the statutory deadline, claiming a marital interest and arguing the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. She missed the deadline to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss and filed a late motion for an extension, which the district court denied.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit determined that summary disposition was appropriate because the government’s position was clearly right as a matter of law. The court found the district court acted within its discretion in denying the untimely motion for an extension of time, noting that deadlines are not aspirational and counsel’s need for additional research did not constitute excusable neglect. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, as the allegations of excusable neglect could have been raised earlier. Finally, the court held that Ibarra abandoned any challenge to the lack of statutory standing by failing to properly address it in her brief, leaving only the constitutional standing argument which was insufficient to overcome the procedural defaults.
What it means going forward
This ruling reinforces strict adherence to statutory deadlines in criminal forfeiture ancillary petitions and limits the ability of third parties to challenge forfeitures after the statutory window has closed.