Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03115/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03115-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS

LOCATED AT 118 TEXAS STREET, SAN

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3115 CRB (EMC)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE AND

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

(Docket Nos. 46, 51)

Previously, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to Rafael

Ramirez, Jr.’s interest in the Texas Street property. See Docket No. 50 (civil minutes). At the

hearing, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file an administrative motion to reopen the case since the

case was formally closed. The Court also instructed Plaintiff to provide a declaration describing the

history of the case, particularly since the closure of the case back in December 2007. Having

reviewed Plaintiff’s submission in response, as well as the papers submitted in support of the motion

for default judgment and all other evidence of record, the Court hereby recommends as follows.

First, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case should be GRANTED. Under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), a case may be reopened for any reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R.

Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). In the instant case, Plaintiff has explained that, previously, Rafael Ramirez, Jr.

agreed to forfeiture of his interest in the Texas Street property. See Docket No. 52 (Hinds Decl. ¶

6); see also United States v. Ramirez, No. CR 06 0316 MHP (Docket No. 256) (Plea Agreement ¶

10(3)). The parties believed that they could determine the extent of Rafael Ramirez, Jr.’s interest in

Case 3:06-cv-03115-CRB Document 55 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Rafael Ramirez, Jr., was not the sole owner of the property. See Docket No. 52 (Hinds Decl.

¶ 4).

2

the real property1

 as well as the amount of equity in the real property by March 2008 and thus agreed

to a conditional dismissal back in December 2007. See Docket No. 52 (Hinds Decl. ¶¶ 7-8). 

However, the process took longer than anticipated and the parties were unable to reach agreement

until November 2009. See Docket No. 52 (Hinds Decl. ¶ 9). That agreement involves Rafael

Ramirez, Jr.’s parents providing money representing his interest in the property in lieu of forfeiture

of the real property so that the parents may retain the real property. See Docket No. 52 (Hinds Decl.

¶ 9). Given the new agreement regarding forfeiture and Plaintiff’s explanation for the delay in

reaching the agreement, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has provided an adequate reason to justify

reopening the case.

Second, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment with respect to Rafael Ramirez, Jr.’s interest

in the real property should also be GRANTED. A default has been entered in the instant case with

respect to Rafael Ramirez, Jr.’s interest in the property. See Docket No. 45 (notice). Although that

default was entered prior to the formal reopening of this case, the Court does not find that fact

material under the circumstances -- namely, that Rafael Ramirez, Jr. was served with a copy of

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default as well as a copy of the notice of entry of default but did

nothing thereafter to contest the entry of default. See Docket Nos. 43, 45 (motion and notice). 

After entry of a default, a court may grant a default judgment on the merits of the case. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. While a default judgment may not be entered against an infant or incompetent

person unless represented in the action by a general guardian or other such representative who has

appeared, see id., or against an individual in military service until after the court appoints an

attorney to represent the defendant, see 50 U.S.C. App. § 521, there is no evidence in the instant

case to indicate that Rafael Ramirez, Jr. is any of the above. Accordingly, the Court may consider

whether a default judgment may be entered against his interest in the Texas Street property.

“The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” 

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors that a court may consider in

exercising that discretion include: 

Case 3:06-cv-03115-CRB Document 55 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)

the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute

concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In the instant case, the above factors weigh in favor of a default judgment. For example, the

second and third factors weigh heavily in favor of a default judgment because, as noted above,

Rafael Ramirez, Jr. previously agreed to forfeiture of his interest in the real property. The only issue

for the parties was working out the extent of his interest in the property as well as the valuation of

the property. The fifth and sixth factors also weigh in favor of a default judgment for the same

reasons. That is, given the agreement to forfeiture, there is no possibility that there is a dispute

concerning material facts or that the default was due to excusable neglect.

The Court notes that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “when multiple parties

are involved [in an action], the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but

fewer than all, . . . parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for

delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b), however, does not seem to be applicable here because

previously a judgment was entered to close the case in its entirety, and Plaintiff has asked for a

reopening of the case only with respect to Rafael Ramirez, Jr.’s interest in one defendant real

property. Even if Rule 54(b) were applicable, a judgment against only Rafael Ramirez, Jr.’s interest

in the Texas Street property would still be appropriate. There is no just reason for delay because all

other claims have been resolved. As noted, the parents, who have an ownership interest in the

subject property, have reached an agreement with the government obtains a default judgment against

Rafael Ramirez, Jr. There is no possibility of inconsistent judgments. Shanghai Automation

Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-03115-CRB Document 55 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

The Court therefore recommends that the motion for default judgment be granted so that the

parties can in essence effectuate their settlement.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

within ten days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

Civil L.R. 72-3.

Dated: April 30, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03115-CRB Document 55 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 4