U.S. v. Basler Turbo-67 Conversion DC-3 Aircraft, FAA Registration No. N8059P

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BASLER TURBO-67…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 12, 2000

248 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

248 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BASLER TURBO-67 CONVERSION DC-3 AIRCRAFT, FAA REGISTRATION NUMBER N8059P, et al., Defendant,and INNOVAIR AVIATION, LTD., Claimant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INNOVAIR AVIATION, LTD. Claimant-Appellee, BASLER TURBO-67 CONVERSION DC-3 AIRCRAFT, FAA REGISTRATION NUMBER N8059P, et al., Defendant. Nos. 99-15369, 00-15090. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit October 12, 2000

D.C. CV-90-01827-RCB

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and submitted Oct. 3, 2000.

Decided Nov. 30, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, BRUNETTI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM

The memorandum filed October 12, 2000, is amended. The amended memorandum is filed today.

Appellant's petition for rehearing filed November 8, 2000, is DENIED.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Pursuant to our prior decision in this in rem case, Innovair was found to be an innocent owner with standing to assert an interest in the substitute res held by the government. See United States v.. Basler Turbo Conversion, No. 94-16876, 1996 WL 88075, at ^**1,^**2 (9th Cir.1996). Under our remand order, the district court's jurisdiction was limited to awarding the substitute res plus pre-judgment interest actually or constructively earned on the substitute res. See id. at ^**2 ("Innovair did not lose standing to assert its claim against the bond, which now stands as the sole substitute for the contract rights it previously held."); see also $277,000 U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1496 (9th Cir.1995).

We remand to the district court with instructions to deliver the substitute res plus pre-judgment interest to Innovair. The district court had jurisdiction to address the value of Innovair's interest in the Technology Licensing Agreement only to the extent of the substitute res. Therefore, we vacate all of the district court's findings and conclusions with regard to valuation of the Technology Licensing Agreement and Innovair's interest in it, except to the extent that the court determined (properly) that the value of its interest was at least equal to the amount of the substitute res.

Furthermore, pursuant to the district court's orders of September 22, 1998 and January 20, 1999, we direct the district court to deliver to Innovair the sum of $164,896, plus actual or constructive pre-judgment interest. This amount represents the portion of the Aircraft N95BF substitute res equivalent to the value of Innovair's interest in Aircraft N95BF.

Costs awarded to Innovair.

VACATED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART.