Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00885/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00885-6/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

1

The background recitation is derived from Plaintiff’s application for default judgment and this

Court’s file.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:06-cv-00885 OWW TAG

Plaintiff, Related case: 1:05-cv-01138 OWW GSA

 

VACANT LAND LOCATED AT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

OR NEAR 13696 S. EAST AVENUE, TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, FRESNO FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

COUNTY, APN: 042-280-10S, (Doc. 21) 

INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES 

AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, 

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

This is a civil forfeiture action against vacant land located at or near 13696 S. East Avenue,

Fresno, Fresno County, California, APN 042-280-10S, including all appurtenances and

improvements thereto (the “defendant real property”). Plaintiff United States of America (the

“Government”) seeks a default judgment against the interests of Lahkbir Purewal in the defendant

real property, and the entry of a final forfeiture judgment that vests in the Government all right, title,

and interest in the defendant real property. 

BACKGROUND1

On July 12, 2006, the Government filed a verified complaint for forfeiture in rem (the

“complaint”) alleging that in June 2005, in the State and Eastern District of California, Baldev

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 1 of 12
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

Purewal used the defendant real property, or allowed the defendant real property to be used, to

cultivate and grow thousands of marijuana plants in a vineyard on the defendant real property, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 821 et seq. (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges that the defendant real

property is one of three properties used in connection with the marijuana grow and its

cultivation. The other two properties consist of a residence located at 1590 E. Conejo Avenue in

Fresno, California (the “Conejo Avenue residential property”) and a residence located at 13696

S. E. Avenue in Fresno, California (the “S. East Avenue residential property”), the latter of

which is adjacent to the defendant real property. The Conejo Avenue residential property and

the S. East Avenue residential property are the subject of a related civil forfeiture action entitled

United States of America v. Real Property Located at 13696 S. East Avenue, et al., case number

1:05-cv-01138 OWW GSA, filed September 6, 2005 (the “related case”). 

On June 7, 2005, law enforcement officers executed state search warrants on the

properties, and located 32,126 mature marijuana plants growing under grapes in a vineyard

located on the defendant real property. (Doc. 1, 5: 24-25, 6:1-5). There were about 50 rows that

contained marijuana. (Doc. 1, 6:5). During a search of the S. East Avenue residential property,

the law enforcement officers located approximately five firearms, most of which were loaded,

and approximately two ounces of methamphetamine in a travel trailer southeast of the main

residence. (Doc. 1,5:26-27; 6:1-2). 

During the searches, the law enforcement officers also encountered six subjects,

including two that were found in the vineyard on the defendant real property where the

marijuana was being grown. (Doc. 1, 4:12-26). One of the latter two subjects was armed with a

9 millimeter handgun, and after being taken into custody and Mirandized, he reported that

Baldev Purewal provided him room and board in exchange for watering the marijuana plants.

(Doc. 1, 4:21-25). The second subject found in the vineyard reported that a Hispanic male adult

known to him as “Tejon” told him to water the plants, and that he was supposed to receive 

$10,000 when the marijuana was harvested. (Doc. 1, 5:4-9). The second subject also reported

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 12
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

3

that he knew, but had never talked with, Baldev Purewal, but that he had seen Baldev Purewal

disc the vineyard within the past month. (Doc. 1, 5: 22-23). 

The complaint also alleges that Baldev Purewal and Nancy Unruh Purewal “”Nancy

Purewal”) are the record owners of the defendant real property. (Doc. 1, 2:1-14). The complaint

further alleges that law enforcement officers interviewed Nancy Purewal at the E. Conejo

Avenue residential property, and she reported that she had been married to Baldev Purewal for

over 30 years and had resided at the E. Conejo Avenue residential property for the past 15 years. 

(Doc. 1, 6:11-14). Nancy Purewal also told the officers that Baldev Purewal lives at the S. East

Avenue residential property with his girlfriend and spends most of his time working his fields

and tending to his grapes. (Doc. 1, 6: 14-17). Nancy Purewal denied any knowledge about the

marijuana cultivation, and told the officers that Baldev Purewal did not discuss work with her

and that he never talked about the marijuana being grown. (Doc. 1, 6: 17-25). 

Baldev Purewal was arrested on June 7, 2005, and eventually was convicted in the Fresno

County Superior Court of cultivating 10 or more marijuana plants in violation of California

Health & Safety Code § 11358, possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana for sale in

violation of Health & Safety Code § 11359, allowing a place for preparation or storage of

controlled substances in violation of Health & Safety Code § 11366.5(a), and other related

charges. (Doc. 1, 6:28; 7:1-5). 

The Government’s Claims 

The complaint alleges that the defendant real property is subject to forfeiture to the

Government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) because it was used or intended to be used to

commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq., an offense

punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment.

Notice of the Forfeiture Action 

On July 26, 2006 the property was posted with a copy of the complaint and a notice of

the complaint. (Doc. 5). On July 14, 2006, the Court issued an order for publication

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 12
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 Lahkbir Purewal’s first name is spelled “Lahkbir” and Lakhbir” in the pleadings. For consistency,

these findings and recommendations will use “Lahkbir Purewal.” 

4

(“publication order”) authorizing the Government to provide notice by four publications in the

Fresno Business Journal. (Doc. 4). Publication in a manner consistent with the publication order

was made on February 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007, and proof of publication was filed on March 6,

2007. (Doc. 16).

The Government’s pleadings reflect that there are four persons with a known potential

interest in the defendant real property, i.e., Amrit Kaur Purewal, Nancy Purewal, Baldev

Purewal, and Lahkbir Purewal.2

 On or about July 13, 2006, copies of the complaint, notice of

the complaint, application and order for publication, lis pendens, order setting mandatory

scheduling conference, standing order of the United States District Judge, standing order of the

United States Magistrate Judge, notice of availability of United States Magistrate Judge, notice

of availability of voluntary dispute resolution, and a letter dated July 13, 2006 , were delivered

by certified mail to Amrit Kaur Purewal, Nancy Purewal, and Lahkbir Purewal. (Doc. 19-2, 2:1-

9; Doc. 21, 3:17-28. 4:1-10; Doc. 22, 3:13-16). On July 27, 2006, the Government caused Baldev

Purewal to be personally served with copies of the pleadings and related documents at Avenal

State Prison, where he is incarcerated. (Doc. 8). On August 8, 2006, Nancy Purewal filed a

verified statement of interest (“claim”) and an answer to the complaint. (Docs. 6, 7). No other

claims or answers have been filed in this action. See Docket, generally. 

On August 22, 2007, the Government, Amrit Kaur Purewal, Nancy Purewal, and Baldev

Purewal executed a stipulation for a final judgment of forfeiture in this case and in the related

case (the “settlement stipulation”). (Doc. 22). The settlement stipulation contemplates a global

settlement as to all three properties, and provides in summary, that the defendant real property

and the S. East Avenue residential property will be forfeited to the Government and sold, with 

the net proceeds divided 2/3 to the Government and 1/3 to Nancy Purewal, and the

Government’s interests in the Conejo Avenue residential property will be released to Amrit Kaur

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 4 of 12
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

Purewal. (Doc. 22, 4:11-27; 5, 6:1-18). 

The settlement stipulation requires the Government to obtain an order of forfeiture in its

favor as to the defendant real property and the S. East Avenue Conejo property prior to

satisfying its obligations under the stipulation. Lahkbir Purewal is the only known potential

claimant who did not sign the settlement stipulation. The Government alleges that claimants’

counsel has attempted to contact Lahkbir Purewal to obtain her signature on the settlement

stipulation, but has been unable to do so. (Doc. 21, 4:22-24).

Entry of Default against Lahkbir Purewal

At the Government’s request, the Clerk of Court entered default in this action on August

17, 2007 against Lahkbir Purewal. (Docs. 19, 20). 

DISCUSSION

The district court has the discretion to enter a default judgment against one who is not an

infant, incompetent, or member of the armed services where the claim is for an amount that is

not certain on the face of the claim and where the defendant has been served with the claim; the

defendant’s default has been entered for failure to appear; if the defendant has appeared in the

action, the defendant has been served with written notice of the application for judgment at least

three days before the hearing on the application; and the court has undertaken any necessary and

proper investigation or hearing in order to enter judgment or carry it into effect. Fed.R.Civ.P.

55(b); Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Factors

that may be considered by the court in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment

include the nature and extent of the delay, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-925 (9th Cir.

1986); the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472

(9th Cir.1986); the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim, id.; the sufficiency of the

allegations in the complaint to support the judgment, Alan Neuman Productions, Inc., 862 F.2d

at 1392; the amount in controversy, Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-1472; the possibility of a dispute

concerning material facts, id.; whether the default was due to excusable neglect, id.; and the

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 5 of 12
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

3

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and

Maritime Claims apply to default judgments in in rem forfeiture actions. However, the Supplemental Rules

prevail if there is an inconsistency. Supplemental Rule G(1) provides that the rule governs an in rem

forfeiture action arising from a federal statute; to the extent that Rule G does not address issue, Supplemental

Rules C and E also apply 

6

policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that favors decisions on the merits, id..

3

A. Notice by Posting and Publication.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that the Government must

give notice and an opportunity to be heard before it can deprive an individual of his or her

property interests. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 48, 114 S.Ct.

492 (1993). A real property forfeiture action in rem is governed by notice statutes and rules that,

when followed, satisfy the right to due process. A real property forfeiture action in rem is

initiated by filing a complaint for forfeiture, posting notice of the complaint on the defendant real

property, and serving notice and a copy of the complaint on the property owner. 18 U.S.C. §

985(c)(1)(B). Notice of a real property forfeiture action in rem is also governed by the

Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Claims

(“Supplemental Rules”). Supplemental Rule G(4) provides for notice by court-ordered

publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the district where the action is filed or the

defendant property is located. The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California also require publication. Local Rules A-530 and 540(a) require a

party seeking a default judgment to satisfy the Court that due notice of the action and arrest of

the defendant property was given by court-ordered publication in a newspaper of general

circulation in the district where the action is filed. 

Here, the Government provided proper notice of this forfeiture action in rem when it

obtained the publication order and published notice of the action in the Fresno Business Journal

in February 2007 in accordance with the publication order. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7

B. Additional Notice by Certified Mail and Personal Service. 

The Government is also obligated to provide additional notice beyond the notice required

by the Supplemental Rules when it knows the identity and whereabouts of the real property

owner. See U.S. v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). In those instances, the

Government is required to provide actual notice by means that are “reasonably calculated under

all of the circumstances” to apprise the real property owner of the pendency of the forfeiture. 

Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168, 122 S.Ct. 694 (2002); United States v. Real

Property, 135 F. 3d at 1315. The additional notice requirement is also addressed in 18 U.S.C. §

985(c)(1)(C), which requires the Government to serve “notice on the property owner, along with

a copy of the complaint.” This additional notice requirement is also addressed by Local Rule A540(a), which requires that a party seeking a default judgment in an action in rem must show that

due notice of the action and posting of the real property has been given by publication, and by

personal service on the person having custody prior to its possession by a law enforcement

agency or officer, and by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to every

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

provided that failure to give actual notice to such other person may be excused upon a

satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to give such notice. L.R. A-540(a). 

In this case, the defendant real property was posted with a copy of the complaint and a

notice of the complaint, and notice of this action was published in accordance with the

publication order and with the content required by the Supplemental Rules. See Supp.R. G. The 

Government additionally provided notice by certified mail to all persons with a known potential

interest in the property, including Amrit Kaur Purewal, Nancy Unruh Purewal, and Lahkbir

Purewal, and caused Baldev Purewal to be personally served at the prison where he is

incarcerated. All of these claimants and potential claimants, except Lahkbir Purewal, have

appeared in this action, either by filing a claim and an answer and/or executing the settlement

stipulation that has been filed with the Court. The Court finds that the Government has given

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 7 of 12
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

8

proper notice of this action.

C. Entry of Default.

The Government contends that the Clerk of the Court properly entered default against

Lahkbir Purewal. A person who claims an interest in or right against the defendant property

must file a verified claim within 30 days after the earlier of the date of service of the complaint

or the completion of the publication notice. Supp. R. G(5). If a person fails to file a claim, he or

she will have no standing as a party to the action. See United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d

at 1316-1317. 

In this case, the Government caused notice of this action and a copy of the complaint and

related pleadings and documents to be delivered by certified mail to three of the four individuals

who had a known potential interest in the property, including Lahkbir Purewal, on or about July

13, 2006. Baldev Purewal is the fourth person who had a known potential interest in the

property, and he was personally served on July 27, 2006. Publication notice was completed on

February 23, 2007, and proof of publication was filed on March 6, 2007. More than 30 days

have passed since the dates that each known potential claimant was given notice of this action,

and since the publication was completed. Nancy Purewal is the only claimant who filed a

verified claim and an answer. Lahkbir Purewal did not file a verified claim or an answer, and

has not otherwise appeared in this action. The Court finds that the Clerk of the Court properly

entered the default of Lahkbir Purewal in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). 

D. Default Judgment.

The Government seeks a default judgment against the interest of Lahkbir Purewal in the

defendant real property and a judgment of final forfeiture that vests all right, title, and interest in

the Government. The Supplemental Rules do not include a default judgment procedure for

forfeiture actions in rem. In the absence of a Supplemental Rules procedure, the Court must

apply the default judgment procedure in the Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. See Supp. R. A. Rule 55

requires an entry of default, and once a party’s default has been entered, the Court has

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 8 of 12
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

9

considerable leeway as to what it may require as a prerequisite to entry of the default judgment. 

A default generally bars the defaulting party from disputing the facts alleged in the complaint,

but the defaulting party may argue that the facts as alleged do not state a claim. Alan Neuman

Productions, Inc., 862 F.2d at 1392. “The general rule of law is that upon default the actual

allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as

true.” Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)(citations omitted).

1987). 

(1) Sufficiency of the Complaint. 

Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) provides for the forfeiture to the Government of property that is

used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the laws governing controlled

substances. Title 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7) provides for the forfeiture to the Government of “[a]ll

real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the

whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or

intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a

violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment.” The burden of

proof in a civil forfeiture action is a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. the Government must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. §

983(c). See United States v. Real Property Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187,

1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The Government alleges that the defendant real property was used or intended to be used

to commit or facilitate the commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq., an offense

punishable by more than one year imprisonment, and is thus subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The complaint alleges that in June 2006, law enforcement officers executing

a search warrant located and seized 32,126 mature marijuana plants growing in a vineyard on the

defendant real property, and the vineyard had been farmed by one of the two record landowners

within 30 days of the date the marijuana plants were located by law enforcement officers. The

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Court has read and considered the complaint, and finds that it meets all of the requirements of

Supplemental Rules. The complaint is verified, contains a legal description of the defendant

property, states the substantive jurisdictional grounds, and alleges that the defendant property is

located in the Eastern District of California. The complaint also includes a legal description of

the defendant property and identifies 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) as the basis for the forfeiture, and

details sufficient facts to establish that defendant real property was being used, or intended to be

used, to commit or facilitate the commission of a drug offense within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.§

881(a)(7). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the claims alleged in the complaint are

sufficiently pled and meritorious, and are legally sufficient to state claims for forfeiture of the

defendant real property. 

(2) Propriety of the Default Judgment.

The declaration of Elisa M. Maguire in support of request to clerk for entry of default

against Lahkbir Purewal establishes that Lahkbir Purewal did not file a claim or an answer and

that Lahkbir Purewal is not an infant, incompetent, or member of the armed services. (Doc. 19-

2). The clerk’s certificate of entry of default establishes that a default was subsequently entered

as to Lahkbir Purewal. (Doc. 20). No one other than the claimant or potential claimants 

discussed above have claimed an interest in the defendant real property despite adequate notice,

and those that have appeared in this action, including the two record owners, have agreed that the

defendant real property will be forfeited to the Government. (Doc. 22). 

There are no apparent risks of mistake or excusable neglect by anyone with am interest or

a potential interest in the defendant real property or of a dispute as to a material fact essential to

the Government’s claims in this action. There is no just cause for delay. There is no reason why

the general policy in favor of a decision on the merits would warrant refusing to enter the

requested default judgment. The Government has shown that it is entitled to a default judgment

of forfeiture with respect to the defendant property.

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11

E. Judgment In Rem.

With respect to the form of the judgment, the Court concludes that the Government has

shown that it is entitled to a judgment not only against the claimant and the potential claimants,

but also against the defendant real property, affecting the interests of all persons in the defendant

real property. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n. 12, 78 S.Ct. 1228 (1958). 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the following: 

1. That plaintiff United States of America’s Application for Default Judgment be 

GRANTED (Doc. 21); 

2. That the Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED TO ENTER:

(a) a default judgment against the interests of Lahkbir Purewal in the defendant

real property; and 

(b) a judgment forfeiting the interests of Amrit Kaur Purewal, Nancy Purewal,

and Baldev Purewal in the defendant real property to the United States of America in accordance

with the Settlement for Final Judgment of Forfeiture (Doc. 22); and

(c ) a final forfeiture judgment vesting in the United States of America all right,

title, and interest in the defendant real property; and 

3. That plaintiff United States of America, BE ORDERED, within 10 days of service

of an order adopting these findings and recommendations, to submit a proposed default and final

forfeiture judgment consistent with these findings and recommendations and the order adopting

them.

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States Senior District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this

Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than November 19, 2007, any party may file written

objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties

and otherwise in compliance with Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

“Objections to Magistrate Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Responses to

objections shall be be served and filed no later than November 30, 2007, and otherwise in

compliance with Local Rule 72-304(d). The District Judge will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s findings and recommendations, 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00885-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 11/06/07 Page 12 of 12