Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00380/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00380-2/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.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4720

WEST DONNER AVENUE, FRESNO,

FRESNO COUNTY, etc.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0380 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

AND ORDER STAYING ACTION 

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 10, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, Esq., Assistant United States

Attorney, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Daniel Bacon, Esq., appeared on behalf of the claimant,

Nancy Schoenstein. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This is an in rem civil forfeiture action. In its

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, the government alleges

that the real property located at 4720 W. Donner Avenue, Fresno,

Fresno County, California, APN: 311-492-29S (hereinafter the

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 6
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

“defendant real property”), was used or intended to be used, in

any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission

of, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, offenses

punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment and is therefore

subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 881(a)(7). The defendant real property was posted with a copy

of the Complaint and Notice of Complaint on May 3, 2006. On

September 8, 2005, in a related case a Grand Jury in the Eastern

District of California indicted Gabriel Schoenstein and others

with violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),

841(b)(1)(D) and 846 - Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess

With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, among other drug-related

violations. The criminal Case, U.S. v. David Crossley, et al.,

Case No. 1:05-cr-00315 OWW SMS is pending. Accordingly,

Plaintiff seeks to forfeit the defendant real property pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).

2. On July 19, 2006, Nancy Schoenstein filed a claim to

the defendant real property. Claimant Nancy Schoenstein alleges

that she is the legal and equitable owner, as well as the

possessor and occupier of the defendant real property located at

4720 W. Donner Avenue, Fresno, California. As of the date of the

filing of this report, no other potential claimants have filed

claims or answers with the court in this action. At the time of

the acts giving rise to the forfeiture in this case, Gabriel

Schoenstein was the title owner of the property. Gabriel

Schoenstein quit-claimed the defendant real property to Nancy

Schoenstein on March 30, 2006. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 6
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

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. It is uncontested that the defendant real property

located at 4720 W. Donner Avenue, Fresno, California, was posted

on May 3, 2006, after a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem

was filed with the court on April 5, 2006. 

2. It is uncontested that Gabriel Schoenstein was

indicted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 -

Conspiracy to manufacture, to Distribute and to Possess with the

Intent to Distribute Marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §2 - Manufacture of Marijuana and

Aiding and Abetting, and 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(D), and

860; 18 U.S.C. § 2 - Possession with Intent to Distribute

Marijuana Near Secondary School, and Aiding and Abetting, along

with other related charges. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Plaintiff contends the facts are as alleged in

its Verified Complaint. 

2. Claimant contends that the subject property I snot

subject to forfeiture, that the Claimant is an innocent owner,

that forfeiture is a disproportionate remedy as well as other

affirmative defenses that will be set forth in the answer when

filed. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 6
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

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and

1355, and 21 U.S.C. § 881; venue appears appropriate pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1395. The parties agree that the alleged acts or

omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this

district. 

2. The parties agree that venue is proper in this

District as the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the

forfeiture occurred in this District. 

B. Contested. 

1. At this time, the disputed legal issues are

identified as whether Nancy Schoenstein is the legal and

equitable owner, as opposed to a “straw” owner, of the Defendant

real property.

2. Whether Nancy Schoenstein is an innocent owner of

the defendant real property and whether the defendant real

property is subject to forfeiture. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 6
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

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties agree that a stay of this case is

appropriate pending resolution of Gabriel Jedediah Schoenstein’s

criminal matter, U.S. v. David Crossley, et al., No. 1:05-cr00315 OWW. 

X. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference will be scheduled after the

stay in this case is lifted. 

XI. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XII. Related Matters Pending.

1. This action is related to U.S. v. David Crossley, et

al., Case No. 1:05-cr-00315 OWW and U.S. v. Real Property located

at 6872 N. Hayston Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County, California,

PAN: 410-293-81s, Case No. 1:06-cv-00382 OWW SMS. The parties

shall notify the Court upon the resolution of the underlying

criminal case for Mr. Schoenstein so that the stay may be lifted

and a schedule for resolution of this case adopted. 

XIII. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 5 of 6
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

XIV. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00380-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/14/06 Page 6 of 6