Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01076-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

29

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

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $9,000.00 IN U.S.

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1076 MCE DAD PS

ORDER & FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter came before the undersigned on December 19, 2014, for hearing of plaintiff United 

States of America‟s motion for entry of default judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) Assistant United States 

Attorney Jeffrey Spivak appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. No appearance was made by 

or on behalf of claimant Beverly A. Faille. Having considered all written materials submitted with 

respect to the motion, and after hearing oral argument, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff‟s 

motion for entry of default judgment be granted.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

This is a civil action in rem brought by the United States for forfeiture of the defendant 

currency. According to the April 30, 2014, verified complaint for forfeiture in rem filed in this action,

on July 26, 2013, a Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) Special Agent received a telephone call from 

Federal Express (“FedEx”) Security regarding two suspicious parcels. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 2.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 9
2

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

29

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

29

Both parcels were addressed to Justin Faille, MQE, 1821 Rail Street, (“Rail Street”), Manteca, CA 

95337 and listed a return address of “B. Melkin, Linda Shopping Center, 529 Main Street, Indian 

Orchard, MA 01151.” (Id.) 

The DEA discovered that both parcels had been shipped on July 25, 2013 and that the $75 

shipping fees had been paid in cash. (Id.) FedEx Security advised that two other packages had been 

shipped by FedEx using overnight delivery from the same shipping location in Massachusetts to the 

Rail Street address in Manteca, California the previous week and the shipping fees with respect to those 

packages were also paid for in cash. (Id.) Moreover, the Rail Street address was under investigation by 

the DEA in an active narcotics investigation and the address had been identified by multiple sources as 

being owned by an individual involved in interstate drug trafficking. (Id.) 

The DEA arranged for the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) to bring a drug-detection dog to 

the FedEx facility to investigate the packages. (Id.) The drug detection dog positively alerted to the 

odor of narcotics with respect to both packages. (Id.) On July 26, 2013, the DEA obtained federal 

search warrants for the parcels. (Id.) The DEA opened the first parcel, bearing tracking number 

803247893644, and found $9,000. (Id. at 3.) The DEA opened the second parcel, bearing tracking 

number 803247892762, and also found $9,000.1 (Id.) In each instance the money was wrapped in 

clear plastic vacuum sealed packages. (Id.) Based on the DEA agent‟s training and experience, FedEx 

is commonly used by drug traffickers to transport currency associated with narcotics. (Id.) 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a verified complaint for forfeiture in rem against the defendant 

currency. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 1, 2014, the Clerk of the Court issued a warrant for the arrest of 

articles in rem, directing the U.S. Marshals Service to arrest and seize the defendant currency. (Dkt. 

No. 3). On May 5, 2014, the undersigned authorized publication of the forfeiture action via the internet 

forfeiture website (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least thirty days. (Dkt. No. 4.) According to plaintiff‟s 

Declaration of Publication a Notice of Civil Forfeiture was published on the official government 

internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for thirty days beginning on May 13, 2014. (Dkt. No. 8.) On May 

 

1

 The $9,000 seized in the parcel bearing tracking number 803247892762 is “the Defendant Currency,” 

at issue in this action. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 3.)

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 9
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

29

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

29

12, 2014, the United States filed a Notice of Arrest of Defendant Currency. (Dkt. No. 5.) 

On June 9, 2014, Beverly Faille, filed a letter with the court seeking “the return of my currency

loaned to [her] son, Justin Faille, that were seized by the DEA from a FedEx package in Stockton, CA.” 

(Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) On June 26, 2014, Beverly Faille, proceeding pro se, filed an answer in this action. 

(Dkt. No. 7.) On September 3, 2014, plaintiff filed proofs of service of the complaint on Justin Faille, 

Beverly A. Faille and Bruce Melkin.

2

 (Dkt. Nos. 11-13.)

On November 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default as to Justin Faille and Bruce 

Melikan, (Dkt. No. 17), and on November 6, 2014, the Clerk of the Court entered default as to Justin 

Faille and Bruce Melikian. (Dkt. No. 18.) On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended motion 

to strike the claim of Beverly Faille and for default judgment, seeking an order striking Beverly Faille‟s 

claim and answer, ordering the Clerk of the Court to enter Beverly Faille‟s default and granting the 

United States‟ request for default judgment against Beverly Faille, Justin Faille and Bruce Melikian.

3

 

(Dkt. No. 20.) On November 14, 2014, the assigned District Judge referred this matter to the 

undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). (Dkt. No. 21.)

On December 19, 2014, the matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff‟s 

amended motion to strike and motion for default judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) Despite being served with a 

copy of that motion, (Dkt. No. 20-2), Beverly Faille did not file any opposition to the motion and no 

appearance was made by, or on behalf of, Beverly Faille, or any potential claimant, at the December 19, 

2014 hearing. That same day, the undersigned granted plaintiff‟s motion to strike the claim of Beverly 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

2

 The proof of service for “B. Melkin” is signed by “Bruce Melikian.” (Dkt. No. 12.)

3

 Therein, plaintiff asserts that Beverly Faille failed to respond to the Government‟s Special 

Interrogatories and that it appeared that Beverly Faille had abandoned her claim, as she failed to 

respond to two letters sent to her by the United States and had failed to file anything in this action since 

the filing of her answer. (Pl.‟s MDJ (Dkt. No. 20) at 4-5.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 9
4

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

29

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

29

Faille and took plaintiff‟s motion for default judgment under submission.

4

 (Dkt. No. 24.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

A 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 (1) the defendant has been served with the claim; (2) the defendant‟s 

default has been entered for failure to appear; (3) 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, (4) 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 

courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment and as to setting aside a default 

include the nature and extent of the delay, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986); the 

possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); the 

merits of plaintiff‟s substantive claim, id.; the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint to support 

judgment, Alan Neuman Productions, Inc., 862 F.2d at 1392; the amount in controversy, Eitel v. 

McCool, 782 F.2d at 1471-72; the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, id.; whether the 

default was due to excusable neglect, id.; and, the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure that favors decisions on the merits. Id.

With respect to default judgments in proceedings that are in rem actions for forfeiture, both the 

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

 

4

 A copy of that order was served on Beverly Faille. In light of the fact that Beverly Faille has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend despite having been served in this action, the undersigned will order the 

Clerk of the Court to enter Beverly Faille‟s default. See IO Group, Inc. v. Jordon, 708 F.Supp.2d 989, 

1000 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Defendant failed to respond to the order to show cause. Accordingly, the 

Court ordered the Clerk of Court to re-enter Defendant‟s default and ordered Plaintiff to file the present 

motion for default judgment.”); Malik v. Hannah, Civil No. 05-3901 (JBS), 2007 WL 708981, at *1 (D. 

N.J. Mar. 2, 2007) (“Because it appears that Defendant Hannah „has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend,‟ Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), within twenty days of being served, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, the clerk shall 

enter Defendant Hannah‟s default.”); Diversified Financial Systems, Inc. v. Tomich Corp., No. 95 CV 

4211, 1997 WL 177873, at *2 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 28, 1997) (“Although they initially appeared in the case 

through an attorney, an appearance, without any further attempt to defend on the merits, will not keep a 

party from being in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend. Therefore, the court hereby orders 

the clerk to enter a default as to Tomich and the Giulianos.”).

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 9
5

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

29

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

29

Maritime Claims (“Supp. R.”) apply, but the latter rules prevail if there is an inconsistency. Supp. R. 

A(1). Supplemental Rule G(1) provides that the rule governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a 

federal statute; to the extent that Rule G does not address an issue, Supplemental Rules C and E also 

apply. Supplemental Rule G, which took effect on December 1, 2006, incorporates a common-sense 

approach to notice grounded in defined and recognized principles of due process of law. Supp. Rule G, 

Adv. Comm. Note on 2006 Adoption. The Advisory Committee Note indicates that the rule was added 

to bring together the central procedures governing civil forfeiture actions; it also states that the rule 

generally applies to actions governed by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) as 

well as those excluded from it; thus, the intended scope of application is very broad. The rule permits 

flexibility as to the time of service of any warrant and supplemental process. Id. The provisions for 

notice incorporate the traditional means of publication and adopt the general principle that notice 

should be effectuated by means reasonably calculated to reach potential claimants at a cost reasonable 

in the circumstances, and actual notice precludes a challenge to the government‟s failure to comply 

with the specific requirements of the rule set forth in Rule G(4)(b). Id.

ANALYSIS

1. Judgement Sought

The court concludes that the notice given of the judgment sought satisfies Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 55(d) and 54(c), which require that a judgment by default shall not be different in kind from 

the relief sought, or exceed in amount that prayed for, in the demand for judgment. In this regard, 

plaintiff expressly sought in the complaint the types of relief sought by the instant application for 

default judgment, including a judgment of forfeiture of the defendant currency to the plaintiff United 

States.

2. Default and Entry of Default

The declarations and the court‟s own docket demonstrate that, other than Beverly Faille, no 

person or entity made a claim or answered the complaint within the requisite thirty-day period for filing 

a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A) and Supplemental Rule G(5), and/or within the twenty-one-day 

period set forth in Supplemental Rule G(5) for filing an answer thereafter. Beverly Faille, who did 

make a claim, had her answer stricken on December 19, 2014, by the undersigned. Therefore, the 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 5 of 9
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

29

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

29

Clerk appropriately entered the default of potential claimants Justin Faille and Bruce Melikian on 

November 6, 2014, and will enter the default of Beverly Faille forthwith.

3. Notice

The Declaration of Publication by plaintiff filed on July 1, 2014 establishes that a notice with 

the contents required by Supplemental Rule G(4)(a) was published on the official government internet 

site for thirty consecutive days as required by Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(c). As to the potential 

claimants, the returns of service filed by plaintiff establish that Bruce Melikian was personally served 

with the pertinent documents as set forth above. The record also establishes that plaintiff demonstrated 

diligent efforts to personally serve Justin Faille and Beverly Faille. Therefore, the notice complied with 

the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(4)(b). The undersigned concludes that plaintiff has 

demonstrated that it has given notice by publication as well as the notice required to be given to 

potential claimants by Rule G(4).

4. Legal Sufficiency of the Complaint

a. Legal Standard

A default judgment 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. Thus, well pleaded factual allegations, except as to 

damages, are taken as true; however, necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which 

are legally insufficient, are not established by default. Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 980 

F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992); TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir.

1987).

Under the CAFRA, which applies to this case, the government must prove by a preponderance 

of evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Further, if the 

government‟s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission 

of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the government must 

establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 

983(c)(3). 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 6 of 9
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

27

28

29

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

29

Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(2) requires that the 

complaint in a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute be verified; state the grounds for 

subject-matter jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property as well as venue; 

describe the property with reasonable particularity; identify the statute under which the forfeiture action 

is brought; and state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will 

be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

b. The Complaint

The complaint filed in this action was verified. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 5.) The bases for 

jurisdiction are identified as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355(a) (jurisdiction of civil proceedings 

commenced by the United States or an agency or officer thereof, and of actions to recover or enforce 

penalties or forfeitures under acts of Congress, respectively). (Id. at 2.) The bases of venue are 

identified as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355 (placing venue for a civil forfeiture action where the acts giving rise to 

the forfeiture occurred) and 1395 (placing venue for a civil forfeiture proceeding where the property is 

found). (Id.) The property is described in the complaint with reasonable particularity and the 

complaint alleges that the defendant currency was seized in this district. (Id.) 

It is stated that plaintiff proceeds pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), and that the defendant 

currency, seized on July 26, 2013, was money furnished and intended to be furnished in exchange for a 

controlled substance or listed chemical, constituted proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and was 

used and intended to be used to commit or facilitate a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq. (Id. at 3.)

In the complaint there are alleged sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that 

the government would be able to meet its burden of proof at trial. As noted above, the complaint 

details that a DEA Special Agent received a phone call from FedEx Security regarding two suspicious 

parcels, mailed on the same day from Massachusetts to California, with the shipping charges paid in 

cash, with the same return address and the same delivery address. The delivery address was under 

investigation by the DEA in relation to an active narcotics investigation and the address had been 

identified by sources as being owned by an individual involved in interstate drug trafficking. A CHP 

drug-detection dog positively alerted to the odor of narcotics emanating from the packages. In each 

package the DEA found $9,000 wrapped in clear plastic vacuum sealed packages.

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 7 of 9
8

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

29

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

29

These facts support a reasonable inference that the defendant currency was subject to forfeiture 

as money furnished and intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or listed 

chemical, constituted proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and was used and intended to be used to

commit or facilitate a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq. The totality of the circumstances reflects a 

substantial connection between the defendant currency and a violation of these statutes.

5. Status of Potential Claimants and Discretionary Factors

Here, no one other than Beverly Faille has claimed an interest in the defendant currency or 

otherwise responded to the complaint despite being provided adequate notice of these proceedings, and

Beverly Faille‟s claim was stricken by the undersigned due to her apparent abandonment of her claim 

as evidenced by her failure to prosecute and/or participate in this civil action. It does not appear that 

there is any risk of mistake or excusable neglect on the part of anyone with a potential interest in the 

property or of a dispute as to a material fact essential to the government‟s case. No just cause for delay 

appears. There does not appear to be any reason why the general policy in favor of a decision on the 

merits would warrant refusing to enter the requested default judgment.

Based thereon, the court finds that plaintiff has shown its entitlement to a default judgment of 

forfeiture.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter the default of 

Beverly Faille.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The United States‟ amended motion for default judgment and final judgment of 

forfeiture (Dkt. No. 20) be granted;

2. That judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interests of Beverly 

Faille, Justin Faille, and Bruce Melikian in the defendant currency referenced herein; and

3. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant 

currency to the United States, to be disposed of according to law.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 8 of 9
9

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

29

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

29

after these findings and recommendations are filed, any party may file written objections with the court. 

A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after 

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court‟s order. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 13, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\USv$9000.mdj.f&rs.docx

Case 2:14-cv-01076-MCE-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/14/15 Page 9 of 9