Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05256/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05256-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS

LOCATED AT 10 TABLE BLUFF ROAD,

LOLETA, CA (APN 308-271-026),

Defendant. /

No. C 06-5256 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY

The United States seeks a stay of this civil forfeiture action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g).

Hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for March 30, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

the Court determines that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES

the March 30, 2007 hearing. The case management conference scheduled for March 30, 2007 is also

VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to stay pending

resolution of the related criminal investigation. The Court also ORDERS the Government to file status

reports every 60 days detailing the continued need for a stay in this case.

BACKGROUND

The United States has brought this judicial forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) against

defendant real property located at 10 Table Bluff Road, Loleta, California. Complaint for Forfeiture

(“Complaint”) ¶ 1. On or about January 26, 2006, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and

officers from the Humboldt County Drug Task Force executed a search warrant at defendant real

property where the Government reports they seized 1801 live marijuana plants, approximately 25

Case 3:06-cv-05256-SI Document 38 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Because the United States and claimants have already agreed to an interlocutory sale of

defendant real property, the issuance of a stay will not affect the sale, which may proceed.

2

 The court has the option of determining a stay is unnecessary if “a protective order limiting

discovery would protect the interest of one party without unfairly limiting the ability of the opposing

party to pursue the civil case.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(3). However, the court may not impose a protective

order as an alternative to a stay if “the effect of such protective order would be to allow one party to

pursue discovery while the other party is substantially unable to do so.” Id. Neither party seeks this

alternative here.

2

pounds of processed marijuana, approximately one half ounce of concentrated cannabis, $8,300 in

United States currency, and other indicia of a marijuana cultivation and distribution operation.

Complaint ¶ 7. Claimant Joan Hunziker is the owner of defendant real property. See Verified Statement

of Interest. Claimants Citimortgage, Inc. and Citibank, N.A. claim interests in the defendant property

in the form of mortgage liens. See Verified Claim of Interest by Claimants Citimortgage, Inc. and

Citibank, N.A. ¶¶ 1-2.

On November 24, 2006, claimant Joan Hunziker filed an emergency motion asking the Court

to compel an interlocutory sale of the property. On Dec. 7, 2006, the parties stipulated to the

interlocutory sale of defendant real property.1

 A real estate broker has been engaged but defendant

property has not yet been sold. See Joint Case Management Conference Statement (“Case Mgmt.

Stmt.”) at 10 (Docket No. 24). Claimant Hunziker actively disputes the validity of the Government’s

forfeiture action. Case Mgmt. Stmt. at 8-9. 

 LEGAL STANDARD

Upon motion of the United States, “the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court

determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related

criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case.”2

 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). If the

government requests a stay, it may “submit evidence ex parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter

that may adversely affect an ongoing criminal investigation or pending criminal trial.” 18 U.S.C. §

981(g)(5).

The terms “related criminal case” and “related criminal investigation,” as used in the statute,

Case 3:06-cv-05256-SI Document 38 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

mean

an actual prosecution or investigation in progress at the time at which the request for the

stay, or any subsequent motion to lift the stay is made. In determining whether a

criminal case or investigation is ‘related’ to a civil forfeiture proceeding, the court shall

consider the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses, facts, and circumstances

involved in the two proceedings, without requiring an identity with respect to any one

or more factors. 

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(3). 

DISCUSSION

In this case, the Government has submitted sealed evidence to support its argument. See

Detailed Declaration of Special Agent Thomas Calhoon (Docket No. 34). Although the claimant objects

to the sealed evidence, arguing that it deprives her of any meaningful notice of the reasons for requesting

a stay, as discussed above the plain language of the statute allows the Government to submit such ex

parte evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(5); see also United States v. GAF Fin. Servs., 335 F. Supp. 2d

1371, 1373 (D. Fla. 2004)(“though claimants ‘[u]nderstandably object to a procedure that would permit

the filing of ex parte, confidential and sealed declarations in support of a stay,’ the statute allows for the

government to submit evidence in an confidential, ex parte form”) (quoting United States v. All Funds

Deposited in Account No. 200008524845, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1330 (D. Wyo. 2001)).

The Court has reviewed the sealed evidence and determined that the criminal investigation and

this civil forfeiture case arise out of the same facts and circumstances, and are clearly related. See 18

U.S.C. § 981(g)(3); see also GAF Fin. Servs., 335 F. Supp. 2d at 1373. Furthermore, the Court finds

that civil discovery will likely adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct the related

criminal investigation because it will subject the Government’s criminal investigation to broader and

earlier discovery than would occur in a criminal proceeding. As such, the Court is obligated by the plain

language of the statute to grant the Government’s request for a stay. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1); see also

United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Suntrust Account Number XXXXXXXXX8359, In the Name of

Gold and Silver Reserve, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 64, 65 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Two things are obvious from this

language: 1) the Government must satisfy the court that civil discovery would adversely affect the

Case 3:06-cv-05256-SI Document 38 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

criminal case; if so, then 2) the court must grant the stay.”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion to stay this case is

GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the Government to provide status reports every 60 days on the

continued need for a stay in the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05256-SI Document 38 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 4