Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00733/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00733-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et )

al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8647 )

NINTH STREET, SAN JOAQUIN, )

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, )

APN:033-091-24, including all )

appurtenances and improvements)

thereto, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00733-AWI-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. 17)

VACATED HEARING DATE:

March 24, 2006

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING NO

LATER THAN APRIL 21, 2006

ORDER DEEMING MATTER

SUBMITTED UPON FILING OF

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(19) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for

default judgment. No opposition to Plaintiff’s motion has been

filed.

I. The Hearing on the Motion is Vacated

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h) of the Local Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

California, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion default

judgment is a matter that may appropriately be submitted upon the

record and briefs without oral argument.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion, presently set for

March 24, 2006, IS VACATED.

II. Supplemental Briefing

An application for a default judgment qualifies as a motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) and Local Rule 1-101(19), and

it should include briefs pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(b). Thus,

when seeking a default judgment, a plaintiff should provide the

Court with points and authorities containing citations to

authority required in order for the Magistrate Judge to make

complete findings and recommendations. It is the party’s burden

to demonstrate to the Court that under the pertinent law, the

Plaintiff’s claims, as alleged, are legally sufficient and that

the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. 

The Court has previously directed the filing of a

supplemental brief containing points and authorities

and accompanying analysis showing the legal sufficiency of the

claim or claims as stated in the complaint, the Plaintiff’s

entitlement to the relief requested, and the legal sufficiency of

Plaintiff’s attempts to serve property owners or persons with a

known potential interest in the property under the applicable law

governing notice or service. The supplemental brief filed by the

government on February 16, 2006, did not remedy the defects in

the initial briefing.

In the present case, the government has attempted to provide

personal notice to Leticia Espino Mandujano, and to Jose Luis

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Mandujano, the recorded owner of the Defendant real property.

However, the government has not provided any case authority in

support of its assertion that its efforts in this regard were

sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute, the rules,

or the Constitution. Plaintiff should provide case authority or

other authority defining the standard for diligence and applying

the law in a manner indicating that efforts analogous to those

undertaken by the government in this case are sufficient.

Further, Plaintiff has not briefed the legal sufficiency of

the complaint to state a claim of violating § 1341 and thus

entitle Plaintiff to forfeiture. Plaintiff has provided a

citation to a jury instruction. Plaintiff IS INFORMED that the

Court requires authority, consisting of pertinent statutory

standards and sufficient case law, to establish the elements of

the offense, and analysis supported by analogous authority

sufficient to establish that the facts alleged satisfy those

elements. A reference to an advisory source, such as a jury

instruction, is insufficient. Further, a mere recitation of the

facts alleged in the complaint does not demonstrate analysis of

the adequacy of the facts alleged in light of the governing law.

Plaintiff asserts that the government must establish the

requisite nexus between the substantive offense of mail/wire

fraud, and the asset that it seeks to forfeit. Plaintiff must

submit statutory and/or case authority defining, specifying, or

otherwise elucidating the type of nexus required to be shown in

order to establish the requisite status of the Defendant property

as proceeds or property traceable to proceeds within the meaning

of the pertinent statute(s); Plaintiff must provide analysis,

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

supported by analogous authority, demonstrating that the facts

alleged in this case that connect the real property to the

statutory violations suffice to establish that the real property

constitutes proceeds or is traceable to proceeds. 

Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file a second supplemental brief

addressing the matters specified by the Court no later than April

21, 2006.

III. Submission of the Motion

Absent further order of the Court, upon the filing of the

Plaintiff’s second supplemental brief, the Plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment WILL BE DEEMED SUBMITTED to the Court for

consideration and preparation of findings and recommendations by

the Magistrate Judge and for decision by the District Judge after

an appropriate time for the filing of objections and any reply

thereto has passed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 4