Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00387/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00387-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:841 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

2006 DODGE CREW CAB PICKUP )

TRUCK, VIN:1D7HA18266S610029, )

LICENSE NUMBER: 7Y86727, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-07-387 OWW/TAG

MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

CLAIMANT JAVIER ROSALES'

UNVERIFIED CLAIM AND ANSWER

(Doc. 21)

Before the Court is the United States’ motion to strike

claimant Javier Rosales’ unverified claim and answer.

A. BACKGROUND.

On March 9, 2007, the United States filed a Verified

Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)

against a 2006 Dodge Crew Cab Pickup Truck, VIN:

1D7HA18266S610029, License Number: 7Y86727. 

On April 9, 2007, a Claim and Statement of Interest was

filed by attorney David Candelaria on behalf of Claimant Javier

Rosales. The verification on the claim is made by David

Candelaria (although Mr. Candelaria did not actually sign the

Claim). Also on April 9, 2007 and on behalf of Mr. Rosales, Mr.

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 7
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

2

Candelaria filed an Answer to Complaint for Forfeiture and Demand

for Jury Trial and Verification Herein. Again, the verification

is made by Mr. Candelaria (and, again, it is unsigned).

On July 25, 2007, Assistant United States Attorney Stephanie

Hamilton-Borchers filed a Declaration in support of the Motion to

Strike. Ms. Hamilton-Borchers avers in pertinent part:

3. In late February of 2007 I received

information for the case agent assigned to

this forfeiture action that the agency was

unable to confirm the identity of a Javier

Rosales who purported to be the owner of the

defendant vehicle. The agency was unable to

confirm whether this was an individual who in

fact existed.

4. Prior to filing the above-captioned civil

complaint I contacted counsel for Claimant,

who had represented Claimant in the prior

administrative proceedings that led to this

action, and requested additional information

regarding the Claimant in order to determine

whether Claimant could, in fact, be an

innocent owner to the defendant vehicle. I

told Claimant’s counsel I was unable to

confirm the existence of the individual who

had claimed to be the owner of defendant

vehicle in the administrative proceedings. 

Counsel for Claimant declined to provide any

identifying information regarding the person

who purported to own the vehicle.

5. At the July 11, 2007, Scheduling

Conference in this case I, along with the

Court, advised Claimant’s counsel that

Claimant had never filed a verified claim as

required by the rules. I refrained from

immediately filing a Motion to Strike and

instead agreed to allow Claimant until July

23, 2007, to file a verified claim and comply

with the strict procedural rules for

forfeiture proceedings.

6. On July 9, 2007, I received a facsimile

from Claimant’s counsel that purported to be

the verified claim of Claimant. No

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Mr. Candelaria did not file his opposition to the motion 1

until August 16, 2007. Pursuant to the Local Rule, it was due to

be filed on August 13, 2007. Because of this untimely filing, the

United States requests that Mr. Candelaria not be allowed to

partake of oral argument. However, the United States was able to

file a reply brief and the Court was able to review the pleadings

in connection with the motion. 

3

verification has ever been filed with the

Court.

7. The United States continues to accrue

storage and maintenance costs for the

defendant vehicle.

The Motion to Strike and Ms. Hamilton-Borchers’ declaration were

filed on July 25, 2007 at 10:52 a.m.

On July 25, 2007 at 4:59 p.m., Mr. Candelaria filed a

Verified Claim on behalf of Mr. Rosales, which claim is verified

by the signature of Mr. Rosales executed on July 17, 2007. On

August 14, 2007, Mr. Candelaria filed an Answer to Complaint for

Forfeiture and Demand for Jury Trial and Verification Herein,

which Answer is verified by the signature of Mr. Rosales executed

on August 1, 2007. 

Mr. Candelaria has filed a Declaration in which he avers in

pertinent part:1

2. At the Scheduling Conference in the

present action heard on July 11, 2007, I was

advised by the Court and the attorney for the

government that my client’s claim and answer

were not verified. I instructed by

secretary, Ms. Jamie Carrillo, to prepare,

serve and file these pleadings on or before

July 23, 2007. Mr. Rosales signed the

pleadings on or about July 17, 2007 [sic] and

the documents were transmitted to the office

of the United States Attorney shortly

thereafter. The aforementioned pleadings

were not formally served and filed at that

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

time. Claimant’s claim was filed by the

prescribed electronic process on or about

July 25, 2007 and the answer was filed by the

same method on or about August 14, 2007. 

These pleadings have been served and filed in

compliance with Court Rules. The failure to

do so prior to the filing of the instant

motion was inadvertence.

B. MERITS OF MOTION.

Rule G(8)(c)(i), Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, provides that, at

any time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim

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

the claimant lacks standing. 

The United States asserts that Claimant and Mr. Candelaria

received notice of this forfeiture proceeding by certified mail

on March 19, 2007, requiring Claimant to file a verified Claim by

April 24, 2007, i.e., within 35 days pursuant to Rule

G(4)(b)(ii)(B) and Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(A). Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C)

provides that a claim must be “signed by the claimant under

penalty of perjury”.

The United States primarily relies on United States v.

$487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662 (3 Cir.2007), case rd

involving Rule C, Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The Third Circuit held:

In order to stand before a court and contest

a forfeiture, a claimant must meet both

Article III and statutory standing

requirements ... To establish statutory

standing in a forfeiture case, the claimant

must comply with the procedural requirements

set forth in Rule C(6)(a) and § 983(a)(4)(A)

... The most significant requirement is that

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

the claimant must timely file a verified

statement of interest, as required by Rule

C(6)(a) ... The verified statement must

identify the claimant’s interest in the

property. Rule C(6)(a)(i).

The requirement that the claimant file a

timely verified statement of interest serves

two purposes. First, it forces claimants ‘to

come forward as quickly as possible after the

initiation of forfeiture proceedings, so that

the court may hear all interested parties and

resolve the dispute without delay ... Second,

it ‘minimize[s] the danger of false claims by

requiring claims to be verified or solemnly

affirmed.’ ... For these reasons, the

requirement ‘is no mere procedural

technicality.’ ... A claimant who fails to

file a verified statement of interest has no

standing to contest a forfeiture.

The United States argues that this motion should be granted

because of Claimant’s failure to file a verified claim within the

time agreed to by the United States at the scheduling conference. 

The United States “will vehemently oppose any attempt by Claimant

to seek to oppose this motion via a late-filed Claim” because of

the need to resolve forfeiture actions quickly and because the

United States continues to accrue storage fees for the vehicle.

Claimant argues that this motion should be denied because

the United States has not been prejudiced by the delay:

Plaintiff has not shown any actual prejudice

arising from Claimant’s failure to serve and

file the responsive pleadings ... Plaintiff

has had constructive and actual knowledge of

Claimant’s identity and the facts supporting

his claim of ownership since the inception of

this proceeding and the actual seizure of

Claimant’s motor vehicle.

The United States replies that there is no basis to excuse

or otherwise justify the late-filed claim. The United States

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 5 of 7
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

The parties were ordered at the hearing to meet and confer by 2

Friday, August 31, 2007, to advance the trial date.

Mr. Candelaria is advised it is his professional obligation 3

and responsibility to timely comply with applicable rules and court

orders. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of

sanctions, which can include the sanction of striking the Claim and

6

contends that the correct procedure would be to strike the

Answer, allow the United States to obtain a default against

Claimant and then place the burden on the Claimant to move to set

aside the default.

The United States’ protestations of prejudice due to the

delay in complying with Ms. Hamilton-Borchers’ agreement to allow

Claimant to file a properly verified Claim and a properly

verified Answer ring hollow when the Scheduling Order is

examined. Jury trial is set for December 9, 2008, nondispositive

motions are due by July 25, 2008 and dispositive motions are due

by August 26, 2008. Although Mr. Candelaria must timely comply 2

with applicable rules and court orders, the failure to do so here

was the result of carelessness on his part. The record is clear

that the United States has been aware of Claimant and his Claim

for months. To proceed as the United States suggests will be a

waste of valuable judicial time for the probable result that the

default will be set aside. Further, this is not a situation in

which no timely claim was filed or filed very late in the

proceedings. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Strike Claimant

Javier Rosales’ Unverified Claim and Answer is DENIED.3

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 6 of 7
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

Answer and entry of a default and default judgment in favor of the

United States.

7

Claimants’ counsel shall prepare and lodge a form of order

that reflects this ruling within five (5) days following the date

of service of this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00387-OWW -TAG Document 28 Filed 08/29/07 Page 7 of 7