Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03646/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03646-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$30,790 IN UNITED STATES

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

NO. C05-3646 TEH 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND ORDER EXTENDING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This matter comes before the Court on Claimant Rosa Verdugo’s motion for relief

from default and Plaintiff United States of America’s motion for a default judgment, both

scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2006. Claimant’s reply to her motion for relief from

default was due on January 17, 2006. However, Claimant failed to file a timely reply. On

January 10, 2006, this Court ordered that Claimant’s opposition to the motion for a default

judgment be filed on or before February 6, 2006. However, Claimant also failed to file a

timely opposition.

On February 7, 2006, the Court’s deputy clerk called Claimant’s counsel and left a

voice-mail message to inquire about Claimant’s opposition papers. On February 8, 2006,

Claimant’s counsel, Ms. Eileen Burke, left a voice-mail message for the deputy clerk,

Case 3:05-cv-03646-TEH Document 23 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Claimant labeled her opposition as both a reply in support of her motion for relief

from default and an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. While a reply is

optional, it was due on or before January 17, 2006. Accordingly, Claimant’s reply was

twenty-seven days late.

2

informing the Court that she was not aware of any opposition that she needed to file on

behalf of her client. That same day, the deputy clerk returned Ms. Burke’s call and left a

voice-mail message informing Ms. Burke that the due date for the opposition came from this

Court’s January 10, 2006 order and to call if she needed any further clarification. Ms. Burke

did not return the deputy clerk’s message. On February 13, 2006, the deputy clerk left

another voice-mail message for Ms. Burke to see if Ms. Burke had received her message

from February 8 , 2006. Ms. Burke called the deputy clerk later in the day and explained that

a colleague was drafting the opposition when the colleague’s computer crashed. Ms. Burke

provided no explanation as to why she had failed to return the deputy clerk’s previous voicemail message or file a timely opposition. The deputy clerk informed Ms. Burke that she had

until February 14, 2006, at noon, to file the opposition with the Court. Ms. Burke

accordingly filed an opposition to the motion for a default judgment on February 13, 2006, at

9:30 PM, one week after the opposition was due.1

It is unacceptable for Claimant’s counsel simply to have let the deadline for filing an

opposition pass. If counsel needed more time, the appropriate course of conduct would have

been to seek approval from the Court for an extension of time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Claimant’s counsel shall show cause on Monday, March 6, 2006, at

10:00 AM, as to why this Court should not sanction her for failing to comply with this

Court’s January 6, 2006 order. If counsel wishes to file a written response to this order to

show cause, she must do so on or before Friday, February 24, 2006.

In addition, because Claimant did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a

default judgment until February 13, 2006 (after Plaintiff timely filed its reply), Plaintiff was

unable to address issues raised in Claimant’s opposition when it filed its reply. Accordingly,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a supplemental reply to its motion for a

Case 3:05-cv-03646-TEH Document 23 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

default judgment on or before Wednesday, February 22, 2006. The hearings for both

motions shall be held as scheduled on March 6, 2006, at 10:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/14/06 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-03646-TEH Document 23 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 3