Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06198/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06198-1/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. )

)

$14,448.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 03 6198 OWW SMS

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF NO LATER

THAN JANUARY 5, 2007

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a default

judgment, which was heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge on

December 8, 2006. As was discussed at the hearing, supplemental

submissions and briefing will be permitted with respect to

several matters.

First, as to any possessor of property or potential claimant

whose rights were the subject of a stipulation or stipulations,

or a plea agreement, the Court needs copies of the stipulations

or agreement because some of the lodged documents do not appear

in the Court file. The Court notes that it has had difficulty

finding stipulations mentioned in the motion, including in

connection with the $14,448.00 stipulations concerning the

Case 1:03-cv-06198-OWW -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

interests of Alberto Felix and Jose Felix; with respect to the

$6,124.00 stipulations concerning the interest of Alberto and

Jose Felix; with respect to the $18,565.00 a stipulation

concerning Jose Felix; and with respect to the 2000 GMC Yukon

Denali, a stipulation concerning the interest of Pedro Lopez. If

there are other stipulations that Plaintiff seeks the Court to

review, they should be provided to the Court unless they were

actually filed in the Court file in this action and were assigned

a document number in the docket.

With respect to notice, Plaintiff should provide the Court

with legal authority, including citation to specific statutes and

rules, and case authority where available, supporting Plaintiff’s

position concerning the adequacy of notice to Bryan Barrera and

to Serapia Zepeda. Plaintiff should also explain to the Court

exactly how the facts (i.e., the actual methods used to give

notice) are sufficient to satisfy the statutes, rules, and cases

relied on by Plaintiff. 

With respect to the 1997 Ford F-150 truck, the Court notes a

paucity of allegations regarding this res in the complaint; it is

possible that the allegations of the complaint as presently

stated are not legally sufficient to warrant a default judgment

in this forfeiture action with respect to this res. Plaintiff

should brief the legal sufficiency of the complaint as it stands

and, if the complaint is legally insufficient, inform the Court

of how the Plaintiff intends to proceed with respect to this

asset and this application for default judgment.

Further, this is a complex forfeiture action with numerous

defendants, and various persons have filed answers and claims in

Case 1:03-cv-06198-OWW -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that when multiple

claims or parties are involved in an action, final judgment as to

fewer than all claims or parties is possible only if the Court

makes an express determination that there is no just reason for

delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment. The

Court understood Plaintiff’s counsel to have represented at the

hearing that the interests of all persons or entities who filed

answers or claims, and who are not the subject of the present

application, have been subject to a final disposition in the

action, but that it is not clear that they have all been

dismissed because of some inconsistency in procedures. The Court

requests that Plaintiff briefly state the status of the interests

of any such persons or entities who filed answers or claims in

this action, and further refer to the document in the file that

documents the final disposition, settlement, or other status, so

that the Court can be certain that a recommended judgment of

forfeiture would finally dispose of this action in its entirety.

If claims remain outstanding, then the Court requests that

Plaintiff address whether or not the entry of judgment is

appropriate in view of any such outstanding claims or interest.

Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file briefing and to submit the

stipulations no later than January 5, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06198-OWW -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3