Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01259-1/pdf.json

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

---

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, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

APPROXIMATELY $70,000.00 IN )

U.S. CURRENCY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-CV-01259-OWW-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE CLAIMANT GUILLERMO GOVEA’S

ANSWER (DOC. 26)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action for forfeiture

in rem 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)(3) and 72-303. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion, filed on June 25, 2007, to strike the answer to the

complaint filed by claimant Guillermo Govea on November 20, 2006.

The motion was accompanied by a memorandum of points and

authorities in support of Plaintiff’s motion and the declarations

of Autumn Magee and Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, with exhibits;

it was served electronically on June 25, 2007, on Guadalupe

Gamino, who is listed as counsel for claimant on the docket. No

opposition has been filed by the claimant, who has not otherwise

responded to the motion.

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 10
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

By separate order, the Court has vacated the hearing on the

motion, and the matter has been submitted to the Court for

decision.

I. Legal Standards

Plaintiff moves to strike the answer pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(f), which provides as follows:

Upon motion made by a party before responding to

a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted

by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20

days after the service of the pleading upon the party

or upon the court’s own initiative at any time, the

court may order stricken from any pleading any

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.

A court may strike a document that does not conform to the formal

requirements of the pertinent rules of court. Transamerican Corp.

v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 143 F.R.D.

189, 191 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs

that arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with

those issues prior to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.,

697 F.2d 880, 885 (9 Cir.1983). Immaterial matter is defined as th

matter that “has no essential or important relationship to the

claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc.

v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9 Cir 1993) (quoting 5 Charles th

A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §

1382, at 706-07 (1990)), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517

(1994). Immaterial portions of a pleading that do not give fair

notice of a claim or defense may be stricken by the Court sua

sponte or upon motion. Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86-87 (2nd

cir. 1995). Impertinent matter is defined as “statements that do

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 10
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

not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” 

Fantasy, Inc. 984 F.2d at 1527. Granting a motion to strike may

be proper if it will make the trial less complicated or if

allegations being challenged are so unrelated to plaintiff's

claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and

that their presence in the pleading will be prejudicial to the

moving party. Id. Superfluous historical allegations are a proper

subject of a motion to strike. See, e.g., Healing v. Jones, 174

F.Supp. 211, 220 (D.Ariz.1959). Scandalous pleadings are those

that reflect cruelly upon the defendant’s moral character, use

repulsive language, or detract from the dignity of the Court.

Skadegaard v. Farrell, 578 F.Supp. 1209, 1221 (D.C.N.J. 1984),

overruled on other grounds by Aitchison v. Raffiani, 708 F.2d 96

(3d Cir. 1983).

In this in rem action for forfeiture, both the general

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supplemental Rules for

Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Supp. R.) apply, but the

latter rules prevail if there is an inconsistency. Supp. R. A(1).

Supp. R. G(1) provides that the rule governs a forfeiture action

in rem arising from a federal statute; to the extent that Rule G

does not address an issue, Supp. Rules C and E also apply.

Supp. R. G requires the claimant to file a claim and answer

as follows:

(5) Responsive Pleadings.

(a) Filing a Claim.

(i) A person who asserts an interest in the defendant

property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim

in the court where the action is pending. The claim must:

(A) identify the specific property claimed;

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 10
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

(B) identify the claimant and state the claimant's

interest in the property;

(C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of

perjury; and

(D) be served on the government attorney designated

under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D).

(ii) Unless the court for good cause sets a different

time, the claim must be filed:

(A) by the time stated in a direct notice sent

under Rule G(4)(b);

(B) if notice was published but direct notice was

not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney,

no later than 30 days after final publication of

newspaper notice or legal notice under Rule G(4)(a)

or no later than 60 days after the first day of

publication on an official internet government

forfeiture site; or

(C) if notice was not published and direct notice

was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's

attorney:

(1) if the property was in the government's

possession, custody, or control when the complaint

was filed, no later than 60 days after the filing,

not counting any time when the complaint was under

seal or when the action was stayed before

execution of a warrant issued under Rule G(3)(b);

or

(2) if the property was not in the government's

possession, custody, or control when the complaint

was filed, no later than 60 days after the

government complied with 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)

as to real property, or 60 days after process

was executed on the property under Rule G(3).

(iii) A claim filed by a person asserting an interest

as a bailee must identify the bailor, and if filed on

the bailor's behalf must state the authority to do so.

(b) Answer. A claimant must serve and file an answer

to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within

20 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives an

objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the

objection is not made by motion or stated in the answer.

 With respect to motions to strike, Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i)(A)

provides:

(c) Motion To Strike a Claim or Answer.

(i) At any time before trial, the government may move

to strike a claim or answer:

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 4 of 10
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

5

(A) for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6),

or

(B) because the claimant lacks standing.

(ii) The motion:

(A) must be decided before any motion by the

claimant to dismiss the action; and

(B) may be presented as a motion for judgment

on the pleadings or as a motion to determine

after a hearing or by summary judgment whether

the claimant can carry the burden of establishing

standing by a preponderance of the evidence.

II. Analysis

A. Duty to Respond

Plaintiff has established that in initiating and carrying

the action forward, Plaintiff gave the required notice in order

to cause the claimant’s obligation to respond to arise. 

On September 13, 2006, the complaint was filed alleging a

claim for civil forfeiture in rem of the Defendant currency,

which was seized on January 26, 2006, by the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) after discovery by the Stanislaus County

Sheriff’s Highway Interdiction Team, based on its having been

furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a

controlled substance, or being proceeds thereof, or being used or

intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the statutes

pertaining to controlled substances. (Cmplt. p. 2.) It was

alleged that the claimant was the driver of the vehicle in which

law enforcement found the funds; the claimant denied ownership of

the money, informed law enforcement officers that it belonged to

his employer, and agreed to sign, and signed, a disclaimer of

interest in the property on January 26, 2006. (Cmplt. p. 4.)

Arrest of the property occurred on September 18, 2006, and

complied with the requirements of Supp. R. 3(b) and (c). (Decl.

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 5 of 10
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

6

of marshal dated September 18, 2006 [Doc. 5].) 

Notice of the action, containing all the contents required

by Supp. R. G(4) [description of the property, the time to file a

claim, name of the government attorney to be served with the

claim and answer], was published on September 26, and on October

3, 10, and 17, 2006, in the Modesto Bee, a newspaper of general

circulation; thus, the publication met the requirements of Supp.

R. G(4)(a) [once a week for three consecutive weeks].

Further, direct notice of the action was effectively given

to the claimant as a known potential claimant when in September

2006 the complaint, warrant and summons for arrest, application

and order for publication, and letter dated September 14, 2006,

were served on Plaintiff by first-class mail service on his

attorney, Guadalupe Gamino, who in turn acknowledged receipt of

the documents on September 18, 2006. (Decl. of Borchers, Ex. A,

letter and notice and acknowledgment of receipt.) The notice was

of a type permitted by Supp. R. G(4)(b). The warrant, summons,

and letter informed him that a verified claim had to be filed

with the Court within thirty days of receipt of the letter, and

an answer filed within twenty days of the filing of the claim.

(Id.) This notice reflected the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

983(a)(4)(A) and (B), which require that when the government

files a judicial forfeiture complaint, a person claiming an

interest may file a claims pursuant to the Supplemental Rules not

later than 30 days after the date of service of the complaint or

after the date of final publication, and shall file an answer not

later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the claim. It

also complied with the requirements of Supp. R. G(4).

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Within the initial period permitted for a response,

Plaintiff’s counsel granted claimant an extension of time to file

a claim and answer until November 18, 2006. (Decl. of Borchers, ¶

3, Ex. B.) An answer was filed by attorney Gamino on behalf of

claimant on November 20, 2006. The answer referred to a verified

claim having been filed, denied the allegations of the complaint,

and prayed for relief. It was not verified, but was signed by the

claimant’s counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that no verified claim had been

filed and that this was mentioned to claimant’s counsel at the

scheduling conference held March 9, 2007, where after counsel

claimed that such a claim had been filed, he was advised to check

the docket. (Borchers Decl. ¶¶ 5-6) The Court’s review of its own

docket reveals that no claim was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel

declares that on March 22, 2007, she sent a letter to attorney

Gamino, instructing claimant to filed a verified claim in

accordance with the rules. The letter was returned unclaimed.

(Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.) The letter informed Gamino of the need for a

claim and the government’s intention to move to strike the answer

or take other appropriate action if no verified claim was filed

by April 15, 2007. Autumn Magee, a government paralegal assigned

to this forfeiture action, declares that on May 17, 2007, she was

contacted by Gamino, who was informed the government was trying

to mail the letter to the claimant as well; counsel stated that

it was his understanding that his office had sent the claim in as

requested, but eh would be in the office the following day and

would call Magee at that time. (Magee Decl. ¶3.) Counsel for

Plaintiff has not had any communication with Gamino or the

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 7 of 10
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

8

claimant since that time. (Borchers Dec. ¶ 9.)

Supp. R. G(8) expressly provides for a motion to strike a

claim or answer for failing to comply with Rule G(5), or because

the claimant lacks standing. 

Granting a motion to strike an answer is appropriate for one

who does not file a claim in compliance with the pertinent rules.

United States v. $38, 570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1112-15

(5 Cir. 1992) (upholding the granting of a motion to strike th

under former Supplemental Rules where the claimant had

constructive notice that the time for filing a claim had begun to

run, and he filed an answer and then an untimely claim); United

States v. $50,200.00 in U. S. Currency, 76 F.Supp.2d 1247 (D.Wyo.

1999) (granting a motion to strike an answer where the claimants

had failed to file a timely verified claim contrary to the

express requirements of the rules and where there were no

mitigating factors, good faith attempt to file a timely claim,

detrimental reliance on misinformation from a governmental agency

or expenditure of considerable resources in preparing the case

for trial). In the Ninth Circuit, several policies support the

requirement of strict compliance with the Supplemental Rules in

filing a claim, including the need to inform the Court that there

is a claimant to the property who wants it back and intends to

defend it, to avoid waste or unnecessary expenditure of judicial

resources, and to further the important interest in the finality

of judgments ultimately entered. See, United States v. Real

Property, 135 F.2d 1312, 1317 (9 Cir. 1998). th

Here, the claimant was given repeated opportunities to file

a claim and was notified clearly of the government’s intention to

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

move to strike the answer; however, the claimant did not file a

claim. Despite an attempt at service on the claimant’s counsel

and repeated reminders, the claimant’s counsel has not undertaken

any effort to file a claim. There has been no compliance with the

requirements of the governing Supplemental Rules. Further, it is

alleged and established that the claimant filed a notice of

disclaimer in the action. 

One who does not file a verified claim pursuant to the

Supplemental Rules lacks standing in the forfeiture action.

United States v. Real Property, 135 F.2d 1312, 1316-1318 (9 Cir. th

1998) (citing additional authority from the First, Fifth, Second,

and Eighth circuits). Accordingly, the answer is immaterial and

impertinent, and should be stricken.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that

1) Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of claimant

Guillermo Govea BE GRANTED, and

2) The Clerk BE DIRECTED to strike the answer filed on

November 20, 2006.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01259-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 10 of 10