Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00151/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00151-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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 STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER [PROPOSED]

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney

KRISTIN S. DOOR, SBN 84307

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916)554-2723

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:09-cv-00151 JAM-GGH

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) STIPULATION TO STAY 

v. ) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND

) ORDER 

APPROXIMATELY $6,085.00 IN U.S. )

CURRENCY, et al., )

 ) DATE: N/A

Defendants. ) TIME: N/A

___________________________________) COURTROOM:N/A

Plaintiff United States of America, and Claimants Adib

Sirope and Rimoun Mansour (hereafter collectively “Claimants”),

by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that a

stay is necessary in the above-entitled action, and request that

the Court enter an order staying further proceedings for an

additional six months pending the outcome of a related criminal

investigation against claimants. The stay currently in effect

expires August 1, 2010.

1. Claimants filed a claim to the defendant property on

February 17, 2009, and filed an Answer to the complaint on March

9, 2009. 

2. The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§

Case 2:09-cv-00151-JAM-CKD Document 23 Filed 07/30/10 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 STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER [PROPOSED]

981(g)(1) and 981(g)(2). The plaintiff contends that claimants

and others conspired to defraud the California Board of

Equalization out of excise taxes due on the sale of tobacco

products in California. The plaintiff alleges that the U.S. mail

and interstate communications systems were used to perpetrate the

fraud. Claimants deny these allegations. 

3. To date claimants, the owners of the property, have not

been charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or

federal authorities, and the statute of limitations has not

expired on potential criminal charges relating to the fraud

scheme. Nevertheless, the plaintiff intends to depose claimants

regarding their claim to the defendant property, their operation

of Pay-Less Wholesale Tobacco, and their business dealings with

others in the tobacco industry. If discovery proceeds at this

time, claimants will be placed in the difficult position of

either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against selfincrimination and losing the ability to pursue their claim to the

defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment right and

submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating

themselves. If either person invokes his Fifth Amendment right,

the plaintiff will be deprived of the ability to explore the

factual basis for the claims they filed with this court. 

4. In addition, claimants intend to depose the law

enforcement agents involved in this investigation. Allowing

depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would

adversely affect the ability of federal authorities to

investigate the underlying criminal conduct.

 5. The parties recognize that proceeding with this action

Case 2:09-cv-00151-JAM-CKD Document 23 Filed 07/30/10 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 STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER [PROPOSED]

at this time has potential adverse affects on the investigation

of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon claimants’ ability

to prove their claim to the property and assert any defenses to

forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that

this matter be stayed for an additional six months. At that time

the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal

investigation, if any, and will advise the court whether a

further stay is necessary.

Dated: July 29, 2010 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney

By /s/ Kristin S. Door 

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

Dated: July 29, 2010 GERAGOS & GERAGOS

By /s/ Mark J. Geragos 

MARK J. GERAGOS

(As authorized on 7/29/10)

Attorneys for claimants

Adib Sirope and Rimoun Mansour

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and 981(g)(2) for an

additional six months. On or before March 1, 2011, the parties

will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez 

JOHN A. MENDEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00151-JAM-CKD Document 23 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3