Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01139/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01139-6/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 1999 LEXUS GS400, VIN

JT8BH68X2X0017848 ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-01139 PJH (EDL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AS TO DAVIS INDUSTRIES

P-380 HANDGUN AND AMMUNITION

Before the Court is a motion for default judgment in an in rem forfeiture action. Plaintiff

filed the motion on February 14, 2007. No opposition was filed. After full consideration of the

papers, the Court finds this matter appropriate for a decision without a hearing. See Civil L.R. 7-6. 

Accordingly, the Court vacates the March 27, 2007 hearing and hereby recommends that Plaintiff’s

motion be GRANTED and a forfeiture judgment be entered.

In August 2004, law enforcement officers from the San Francisco Police Department

Narcotics Unit received information from a confidential informant regarding the drug trafficking

activities of Donald Tram. See United States v. Donald Tram, CR 04-0311 PJH (N.D. Cal.) (related

case). According to the informant, Tram used two vehicles in the course of his drug trafficking

activities, and kept a handgun in his vehicle when making drug sales. Compl. ¶ 7. On August 20,

2004, police officers stopped and searched Tram while he was driving in his Lexus sedan to meet the

informant at a police-arranged meeting. Id., ¶¶ 11-12. Officers seized drugs, $3,745 in cash, and a

loaded Davis Industries P-380 handgun, whose serial number had been tampered with such that it

could not be read. Id., ¶¶ 12-13; Doc. No. 7 (Warrant Return). The officers subsequently obtained a

warrant and searched Tram’s house, seizing drugs, a stolen Smith and Wesson handgun, a loaded

Case 4:05-cv-01139-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Since December 1, 2006, civil forfeitures have been governed by Supplemental Rule G,

incorporating Supplemental Rules A, C, and E, as revised. At the time of the commencement of this

action and relevant filings, Supp. Rule G was not in effect. The Court therefore refers to the applicable

Rule(s) in effect prior to the adoption of the December 1, 2006 revisions.

2

 Beretta handgun, and $43,400 in cash. Compl. ¶ 14; Doc. No. 6 (Warrant Return). Tram pled

guilty to violating Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a). Compl. ¶¶ 16-17. 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 881(a)(4) and (11) provide, in relevant part, for the

forfeiture of vehicles and firearms which are used or intended for use to transport, sale, receipt,

possession or concealment of a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 881(a). Section 881(a)(6)

provides, in part, for the forfeiture of all monies or other things of value furnished in exchange for a

controlled substance, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all monies used or intended to

be used to facilitate the distribution and possession with the intent to distribute a controlled

substance. Id. The police had sufficient evidence to believe that the seized property had been used

in connection with the sale and distribution of a controlled substance, Compl. ¶ 22; accordingly, on

March 18, 2005, pursuant to Supp. Rule C(1)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1

 Plaintiff

brought an action for forfeiture against the following property seized from Tram:

(a.) 1999 Lexus GS 400, 4-door, VIN JT8BH68X2X0017848, California license

number 4EUA638, registered owner Donald Tram;

(b.) $43,400 in United States currency;

(c.) $3,745 in United States currency;

(d.) one Davis Industries P-380 handgun and accompanying 380 caliber ammunition; and

(e.) one Beretta handgun, Model 96, with accompanying 40 caliber ammunition, serial

number 045985 M.

See Fed.R.Civ.P.Supp. C(1) (“An action in rem may be brought ... [w]henever a statute of the United

States provides for a maritime action in rem or a proceeding analogous thereto.”)

Plaintiff duly published a Notice of Forfeiture in The Recorder, a daily newspaper of general

circulation in the San Francisco Bay Area, on March 30 and April 6 and 13. Hinds Decl. in Support

of Request for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 36), ¶ 3 and Ex. B. Plaintiff served copies of the

Complaint and Notice of Forfeiture on Tram, Tram’s criminal attorney, Tram’s wife, and Tram’s

Case 4:05-cv-01139-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

2

At the time the action was commenced, the Rules required that the statement be filed within 30

days after service of the complaint or completion of the Rule C(4) notice by publication; effective

December 1, 2006 Supp. Rule G allows a statement to be filed up to 60 days after the first day of

publication on an official internet government forfeiture site. No statement of interest or ownership was

filed within either time period. 

3

wife’s civil forfeiture attorney. Hinds Decl., ¶ 4. 

Pursuant to Supplemental Rule C(6)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a person who

asserts a right of possession or any ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the in rem

action must file a verified statement of interest within a certain period of time, and must file an

answer within 20 days after filing the statement of interest or right. Fed.R.Civ.P.Supp. C(6)(a).2

 On

April 14, 2005, Lieutenant Carlos Sanchez of the San Francisco police filed a claim of ownership for

(e), the Beretta handgun, which had previously been stolen from him. See Letter (Doc. No. 10). On

April 19, 2005, Donald Tram and his wife Kristine Tram filed separate claims of ownership interests

in the vehicle and the currency. See Verified Claims Opposing Forfeiture (Doc. Nos. 12-13) (“The

undersigned hereby claims an ownership and/or a possessory interest in, and the right to exercise

dominion and control over, all or part of the defendant property.”); Status Conference Statement

(Doc. No. 19) at 2 n.1 (“While it is not specifically set forth in their verified statements of interest,

counsel for Donald and Kristine Tram has advised government counsel that they do not claim an

interest in the defendant firearms.”). The Trams also filed an Answer on April 19, 2005. Doc. No.

11. Each of these claims have been resolved. See Settlement Stipulation and Final Order of

Forfeiture (Doc. No. 35); Hinds Decl., ¶ 5. No claims or answers have been filed in connection with

defendant Davis Industries P-380 Handgun and Ammunition. Hinds Decl., ¶ 6.

 Default may be entered upon a showing that: (a) notice has been given as required by

Admiralty Local Rule 6-1; (b) the time to answer has expired; and (c) no one has appeared to claim

the property. Admiralty Local Rule 6-1 requires a party seeking a default to show that due notice of

the action and arrest of the property has been given (1) by publication as required by Supp. Rule

C(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) by service upon the person having custody of the

property; and (3) by service under Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon every

other person who has not appeared in the action and is known to have an interest in the property. 

Admiralty L.R. 6-1(a). In addition, if the defendant property is of such a character that there exists a

Case 4:05-cv-01139-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

governmental registry of recorded property interests or security interests in the property, the plaintiff

must attempt to notify all persons named in the records of each such registry. Admiralty L.R. 6-

1(b). Failure to give notice as provided by this local rule shall be grounds for setting aside the

default under applicable rules.

 Here, Plaintiff has given notice by publication regarding the seizure of property, including

the defendant Davis Industries P-380 handgun and accompanying 380 caliber ammunition. See

Hinds Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. B. Plaintiff also personally served the Trams and their attorneys, satisfying

the requirement that Plaintiff provide notice to the persons in custody of the property at the time of

seizure. See Admir. L.R. 6-1. No person has stated an interest in the Davis Industries P-380

handgun and accompanying 380 caliber ammunition; and, although the property may have a

governmental registry of recorded property interests or security interests in the firearm, the serial

number of the handgun is illegible. Accordingly, because it is impossible for Plaintiff to comply

with Admiralty Local Rule 6-1(b)(3) (requiring notice to registered owners), the Plaintiff has

satisfied the requirement that Plaintiff notify all persons with known interests, custody, and named

in the records of each governmental registry. Moreover, the time to answer has expired, and no one

has appeared to claim an interest in the defendant Davis Industries P-380 handgun and

accompanying 380 caliber ammunition. Hinds Decl., ¶ 6. 

After the time for filing an answer has expired, the plaintiff may apply for entry of default

under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Admiralty L.R. 6-2. Plaintiff applied for

a default on September 25, 2005, which the Clerk entered on October 10, 2006. Judgment may be

entered under Rule 55(b) at any time after default has been entered. Id. The Court is satisfied that

Plaintiff has met all notice requirements and that default was properly entered. 

By his or her default, the true owner of the Davis Industries P-380 handgun and

accompanying 380 caliber ammunition has admitted the well-pleaded averments of the complaint,

including that the property is subject to forfeiture because it was used or intended to be used to

facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession and concealment of controlled substances and

proceeds thereof. See Compl. ¶ 22; 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(11). Therefore, default judgment may be

entered under Rule 55(b). See Rule 8(d); Admir. L.R. 6-2; United States of America v. $70,000 in

Case 4:05-cv-01139-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

U.S.Currency, 1998 WL 574373 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 1998). The amount of damages is not at issue in

this action. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown, It Is Hereby

Recommended that the following default judgment be entered: 

 This Court having previously entered default against defendant Davis Industries P-380

handgun and accompanying 380 caliber ammunition, and Plaintiff having applied to this Court for

the entry of default judgment, 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be Granted, the

Defendant Firearm be declared forfeited to the United States. 

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)(B); Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. 

Dated: March 12, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01139-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 5