United States of America v. 878 County Road 1490 Rush Springs Oklahoma 73082 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v. Case No. CIV-23-424-SLP
878 COUNTY ROAD 1490, RUSH
SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA 73082, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial
Summary Judgment with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 113]. Plaintiff seeks judgment as a
matter of law in its favor as to Claimant Wai Yip Choi’s alleged interest in real property
located at 2255 County Road 1410, Alex Oklahoma, 73002, Defendant No. 6. Claimant
Wai Yip Choi has filed a Response [Doc. No. 131] and Plaintiff has filed a Reply [Doc.
No. 133]. The matter is at issue and ready for decision. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
I. Introduction
This civil forfeiture action arises from an investigation led by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics (OBN) into a marijuana
trafficking organization operating throughout Oklahoma. Claimant Wai Yip Choi (Choi)
filed a verified claim, asserting an interest in certain real property identified in the forfeiture
action as 2255 County Road 1410, Alex, Oklahoma 73002, Defendant No. 6 (the Real
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Property). The Real Property at issue is alleged to have been used for various marijuana
growing operations. The marijuana was transported to locations outside Oklahoma for
further distribution in violation of both state and federal law. When law enforcement
executed a search warrant at the Real Property, they found a substantial marijuana grow
operation.
II. Governing Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Walkingstick Dixon v.
Oklahoma ex rel. Reg’l Univ. Sys. of Okla. Bd. of Regents, 125 F.4th 1321, 1333 (10th Cir.
2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “The dispute about a material fact is genuine if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (brackets and ellipsis
omitted)). In reviewing the summary judgment record, the district court “view[s] facts in
the light most favorable to the non-movants, resolving all factual disputes and reasonable
inferences in their favor.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
III. Undisputed Material Facts
In December 2022, the FBI began investigating a marijuana trafficking organization
in Oklahoma. Based on law enforcement’s observations of an individual, Brandon Ye
(Ye), law enforcement believed that Ye was transporting marijuana plants in black trash
bags from various locations in Oklahoma to a residence in Oklahoma City. One of those
locations was the subject Real Property. In May 2023, law enforcement executed a search
warrant at the Real Property and seized a large amount of marijuana. Law enforcement
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
discovered marijuana growing in multiple grow houses, with plants at various stages of
growth. Based on their training and experience, law enforcement believed there to be
hundreds of marijuana plants at the Real Property. Samples seized from the Real Property,
upon forensic examination, tested positive for the presence of marijuana, a federal
Schedule I controlled substance.
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this forfeiture action. See Doc. No. 1. Two days
later, on May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens with the Grady County Clerk
advising that the Real Property was subject to this civil forfeiture action. See Doc. No.
113-5.
Claimant Choi contends that he obtained his interest in the Real Property in
February 2024. A review of the Quit Claim Deed shows that the interest in the Real
Property was conveyed to an entity named WeBird, LLC. See Doc. No. 113-4. Claimant
Choi signed an Exhibit to the Deed entitled Affidavit of Land or Mineral Ownership:
Individual. See id. at 2.
IV. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of the Real Property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), for
violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. To prevail, Plaintiff must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(c)(1); see United States v. 2121 Celeste Rd. SW, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1269 (D.N.M.
2016).
Real property is subject to forfeiture if it is “used, or intended to be used, in any
manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation” of the federal
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
drug laws punishable “by more than one year’s imprisonment.” 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).
Manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to manufacture or
distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, regardless of their weights, is prohibited and is
punishable by a maximum penalty of forty years’ incarceration and a fine of $5,000,000.
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii).
The undisputed facts demonstrate that the Real Property was used to commit or
facilitate the commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and that this is
a felony offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. Accordingly, the
Real Property is forfeitable. See, e.g., United States v. 6941 Morrison Dr. Denver, Colo.,
6 F.Supp.3d 1176, 1180 (D. Colo. 2013) (property was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881(a)(7) where it was used to grow marijuana).
To establish that real property was “used to commit or facilitate” an illegal drug
offense, Plaintiff must also show that there was a substantial connection between the
property and the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3). The connection between the property and
the criminal activity must be more than fortuitous. United States v. One Parcel of Real
Estate Commonly Known as 916 Douglas Avenue, 903 F.2d 490, 494 (7th Cir. 1990). The
burden then shifts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
factual predicates for forfeiture have not been met or by showing that the claimant is an
innocent owner. United States v. One Parcel Prop. Located at Lot 85, Country Ridge, a
Subdivision in City of Lenexa, Johnson Cnty., Kan., 894 F. Supp. 397, 403 (D. Kan. 1995);
see also 18 U.S.C. § 983.
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Here, Claimant Choi does not dispute the fact that the Real Property was being used
for a commercial grow operation and that law enforcement found on the Real Property
hundreds of marijuana plants in various stages of growth. Such evidence demonstrates a
substantial connection between the real property and the offense. Cf. United States v. 6941
Morrison Drive, Denver, Colo., 6 F.Supp.3d 1176, 1179-80 (D. Colo. 2013) (finding house
subject to forfeiture where claimant did not dispute that “he was cultivating over fifty
marijuana plants in the basement of defendant property with the intent to distribute”);
United States v. 22. Real Property Located at 23965 East Wagontrail Ave., Aurora, Colo.,
No. 19-CV-257-WJM-STV, 2023 WL 8851060 at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2023) (substantial
connection existed between subject property and offense where claimants did not dispute
that over one hundred marijuana plants were being cultivated in the basement of the
property with intent to distribute).
Claimant Choi thus has the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the Real Property is not forfeitable. See United States v. 5910 Ogden Court, 913 F.
Supp.2d 1037, 1042 (D. Colo. 2012). As Plaintiff argues, Claimant Choi filed a Verified
Claim in his name, individually, asserting that “Wai Yip Choi is the owner of the above-
listed property.” See Doc. No. 38. The Verified Claim includes no reference whatsoever
to WeBird, LLC. Claimant Choi has produced no evidence that he held an ownership
interest in the Real Property, individually.
Claimant Choi argues that he can pursue the claim, nonetheless, because he is the
sole member of WeBird LLC, the Oklahoma limited liability company designated as the
property owner on the Quit Claim deed. But Claimant Choi offers no authority to support
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
such a legal position. Nor does Claimant Choi produce any evidence to show that he is a
member of WeBird LLC – sole or otherwise. Although he submits an Affidavit, see Doc.
No. 131-1, the Affidavit is silent with respect to his alleged ownership interest in WeBird
LLC.
The Court is troubled by representations made by Claimant Choi in his Response.
For example, he states: “Throughout this case, the pleadings have been filed as ‘Wai Yip
Choi/WeBird, LLC’ and identified as ‘Claimant Choi.’” Resp. at 3 (emphasis added). But
no “pleading” has been filed by Claimant Choi. And no other filing by Claimant Choi
includes any reference to WeBird LLC.
Claimant Choi states that in the “Affidavit attached to his Verified Answer, Wai Yip
Choi indicated that he was the owner of WeBird, LLC.” Resp. at 3. But, as stated,
Claimant Choi did not file any pleading, to include any “Verified Answer”, in this case.
He did file a Verified Claim, see Doc. No. 38, but as noted above, it does not make any
mention of WeBird, LLC or that Claimant Choi is the “owner” of that LLC. And the only
other Affidavit submitted by Claimant Choi is attached to his Response. See Doc. No. 131-
1. But again, that Affidavit is utterly silent as to WeBird LLC or Claimant Choi’s affiliation
with any such LLC.1
The record, therefore, fails to establish that Claimant Choi has any ownership
interest in the Real Property. Even if he did, the Court finds Claimant Choi has failed to
1 Claimant Choi is reminded of the obligations accompanying his filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
Any future misrepresentations or unsupported evidentiary assertions may subject Claimant Choi
and/or his counsel to sanctions.
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
show that he is an innocent owner. As Plaintiff argues, the Notice of Lis Pendens was filed
almost a year before WeBird LLC obtained its interest in the Real Property by quit claim
deed. Under Oklahoma law, “the filing of a lis pendens performs a valuable public
function in providing constructive notice to potential third-party buyers of pending
litigation.” Oak Tree Partners, LLC v. Williams, 458 P.3d 626, 644 (Okla. Civ. App.
2018).2 The Notice precludes any innocent owner defense. See, e.g., United States v. 5112
Lipizzan Place, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737, No. 06-0400 LH/ACT, 2007 WL 9729191
at *3 (D.N.M. Sept. 6, 2007) (finding that claimant could not establish innocent owner
defense “because he acquired his alleged interest in the Property after the United States
recorded the lis pendens, and thus, he had constructive knowledge of the United States’
interest in the Property”).
Upon review, Claimant Choi has not shown any valid interest in the Real Property.
Nor is there any basis upon which to find that Claimant Choi is an innocent owner. As
such, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in its favor as to the claimed interest
of Claimant Wai Yip Choi in the Real Property.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary
Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 113] is
GRANTED.
2 In federal forfeiture proceedings, state law governs the determination of ownership interests. See
United States v. Andrews, 530 F.3d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008).
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 134 Filed 04/13/26 Page 8 of 8