Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00183/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00183-2/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

The subject Jeep’s vehicle identification number is 1J4GZ48S5WC293316, and its California license

1

number is 5NOJ010.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. CV F 06-0183 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

vs. JUDGMENT

(Doc. 22.)

1998 JEEP CHEROKEE, 

VIN: 1J4GZ48S5WC293316,

LICENSE NUMBER: 5NOJ010,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this civil forfeiture action, plaintiff United States of American (“Government”) seeks:

1. Default judgment against the interests of Onecimo Viveros (“Mr. Viveros”), Edwar

Lopez Rodriguez (“Mr. Rodriguez”) and Maria Delaluz Espindola (“Ms. Espindola”) in

the defendant 1998 Jeep Cherokee vehicle (“Jeep”); and 1

2. Entry of a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest

in the Jeep.

This Court considered the Government’s default and final forfeiture judgment motion on the record and

without oral argument or the now vacated December 1, 2006 hearing, pursuant to this Court’s Local

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 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

No timely opposition papers were filed. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(c), no opposing party 2

is entitled to oral argument in the absence of timely filed opposition papers.

The below factual recitation is based on the Government’s papers and record before this Court. 3

The Government’s papers note that Mr. Viveros used the alias “Ramero.” 4

2

Rule 78-230(c) and (h). For the reasons discussed below, this Court RECOMMENDS to: 2

1. GRANT the Government default judgment and to ENTER final forfeiture judgment to

vest in the Government all right, title and interest in the Jeep; and

2. ORDER the Government, within 10 days of service of an order adopting these findings

and recommendations, to submit a proposed default and final forfeiture judgment

consistent with these findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND3

Jeep Seizure

Mr. Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez were targets of a Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)

4

investigation into a nine-pound sale of methamphetamine. The Jeep is registered to Ms. Espindola and

was used in connection with a September 19, 2005 buy of methamphetamine by a confidential source

and which culminated in Mr. Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez’ arrests and the Jeep’s seizure. A search of

the Jeep revealed a loaded 9 mm handgun and false compartment under the rear driver-side seat. Mr.

Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez were indicted on possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute

and aiding and abetting. The criminal case against Mr. Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez is pending.

The Government’s Claims

On February 17, 2006, the Government filed its complaint for forfeiture in rem (“complaint”)

in this action to claim that the Jeep is subject to forfeiture to the Government under 21 U.S.C. §

881(a)(4) in that the Jeep constitutes a conveyance used or intended to be used to transport, or to

facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession or concealment of a controlled substance. On

February 21, 2006, this Court issued a warrant and summons for arrest in rem (“arrest warrant”) for the

Jeep. The arrest warrant was executed on March 10, 2006.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Notice Of Forfeiture Action

This Court issued its February 23, 2006 order for publication (“publication order”) for the

Government to provide public notice of this action and arrest of the Jeep by publication in the Merced

Sun-Star. Such notice appeared in the Merced Sun-Star on March 26, 2006, and the Government filed

proof of such publication on April 17, 2006.

On March 10, 2006, the Government personally served Mr. Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez with

copies of the complaint, arrest warrant, publication order and other papers related to this action. On

March 20, 2006, the Government personally served Ms. Espindola with copies of the complaint, arrest

warrant, publication order and other papers related to this action. On March 23, 2006, Ms. Espindola

filed her notice to withdraw claim to the Jeep. 

Default Entries

At the Government’s request, this Court’s clerk entered in this action a September 14, 2006

default against Mr. Rodriguez, September 14 and 18, 2006 defaults against Mr. Viveros, and a

September 20, 2006 default against Ms. Espindola. 

DISCUSSION

Complaint’s Sufficiency

The Government contends that its complaint’s allegations and issuance of the arrest warrant

based on probable cause “provide ample grounds” for the Jeep’s forfeiture. A complaint’s sufficiency

is a factor to consider whether to grant default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472

(9 Cir. 1986). The Government notes that its complaint’s allegations arise from the underlying parallel th

criminal prosecution of Mr. Viveros and Mr. Rodriguez. Thus, according to the Government, the Jeep

is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §881(a)(4) (“All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or

vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the

transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment” of illegal controlled substances.)

As noted by the Government, the Jeep was involved in the subject methamphetamine sale,

“facilitated the transportation of narcotics for sale and had a hidden compartment specifically installed

for that purpose.” In the absence of assertion of interests in the Jeep, this Court is not in a position to

question the sufficiency of the Government’s claims in this action.

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Notice Requirements

The Government contends that it provided required notice for the Jeep’s forfeiture. The Fifth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government to deprive property without “due process

of law.” Individuals whose property interests are at stake are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to

be heard.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 48, 114 S.Ct. 492 (1993).

Judicial property forfeitures are governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and

Maritime Claims (“Supplemental Rules”). Supplemental Rule C(4) requires the Government to give

notice of forfeiture proceedings by publication alone. This Court’s Local Admiralty and In Rem Rules

echo Supplemental Rule C(4)’s notice of forfeiture action by court-ordered publication in a newspaper

of general circulation in the district where the action is filed. See Local Rule A-530 (incorporating Local

Rule 83-171 by which court is to designate appropriate newspaper and manner of publication). The

Government accomplished such notice with the publication order and publishing notice of this action

and the arrest of the Jeep in the Merced Sun-Star in March 2006.

However, when the Government knows of an owner of defendant property, the owner has a

constitutional right of due process to require “the Government to make a greater effort to give him notice

than otherwise would be mandated by Supplemental Rule C(4).” United States v. Real Property, 135

F.3d 1312, 1315 (9 Cir. 1998). Forsuch persons, the Government must attempt to provide actual notice th

by means “‘reasonably calculated under all circumstances’ to apprise [the person] of the pendency of

the . . . forfeiture[.]” Dusenberry v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168, 122 S.Ct. 694 (2002). The

Government must provide such notice “as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might

reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315,

70 S.Ct. 652 (1950). “Reasonable notice, however, requires only that the government attempt to provide

actual notice; it does not require that the government demonstrate that it was successful in providing

actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11 Cir. 2005). th

This Court’s Local Rule A-540 addresses notice to persons known to have an interest in property

subject to forfeiture. The rule requires that a party seeking default judgment in an action in rem to show

to the Court’s satisfaction that due notice and arrest of the property has been given by: (1) publication;

(2) if the property is in the hands of a law enforcement officer, by personal service on the person having

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 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

5

custody prior to its possession by law enforcement agency or officer; and (3) by personal service or

certified mail, return receipt requested, to every other person who has not appeared in the action and is

known to have an interest in the property; provided that failure to give actual notice to such other person

may be excused upon a satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to give such notice without success.

Local Rule A-540(a).

Putting aside the Supplemental Rules and Local Rule A-540(a), the Government provides

sufficient notice if such notice complies with F.R.Civ.P. 4 requirements. See F.R.Civ.P. 4(n)(1) (when

a federal statute authorizes forfeiture, “[n]otice to claimants of the property shall then be sent in the

manner provided by statute or by service of a summons under this rule.”)

Here, the Government personally served Mr. Viveros, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Espindola with

the complaint, arrest warrant, publication order and other papers regarding this action. Ms. Espindola

filed in this action a withdrawal of her claim in the Jeep. No notice issues arise as to the Jeep’s

forfeiture.

Failure To Answer

The Government contends that this Court’s clerk properly entered defaults against Mr. Viveros,

Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Espindola. Supplemental Rule C(6)(a) addresses responsive pleadings in civil

forfeiture actions such as this and requires a person who asserts an interest in or right against the subject

property to file a verified statement to identify the interest or right within 30 days after the earlier of: (1)

service of the Government’s complaint; or (2) completion of publication notice. Failure to comply with

Supplemental Rule C(6) requirements precludes a person to establish standing as a party to a forfeiture

action. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317. 

As outlined above, the Government on March 10 and 20, 2006, personally served Mr. Viveros,

Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Espindola with copies of the complaint, arrest warrant, publication order and

other papers related to this action. On March 23, 2006, Ms.Espindola filed her notice to withdraw claim

to the Jeep. Publication notice was completed on March 26, 2006, and the Government filed proof of

such publication notice on April 17, 2005. More than 30 days have passed since completion of

publication notice and since service of the complaint on Mr. Viveros, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Espindola.

This Court’s clerk properly entered defaults upon failure of the potential claimants to respond to the

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 5 of 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

6

Government’s complaint and notices.

Default Judgment

The Government seeks judgment against the interests of Mr. Viveros, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms.

Espindola and final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest in the Jeep.

The Supplemental Rules do not provide a procedure to seek default judgment. Supplemental Rule A

provides: “The general Rules ofCivil Procedure for the United States District Courts are also applicable

to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental

Rules.”

Default entry is a prerequisite to default judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 55(a) governs entry of default:

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall

enter the party’s default.” Generally, the default entered by the clerk establishes a defendant’s liability:

Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require as a

prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment. “The general rule of law is that upon

default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of

damages will be taken as true.” (citations omitted). Geddes v. United Financial Group,

559 F.2d 557, 560 (9 Cir. 1977). th

Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-918 (9 Cir. 1987). th

As noted above, the Government properly obtained default entries against the interests of Mr.

Viveros, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Espindola. There is no impediment to default judgment sought by the

Government as to them. The Government properly seeks judgment against the interests of the entire

world, that is, a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest in the Jeep.

“A judgment in rem affects the interests of all persons in designated property. . . . [T]he plaintiff is

seeking to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the

nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246, n. 12,

78 S.Ct. 1228 (1958).

In light of the defaults and Ms. Espindola’s withdrawal of claim in the Jeep, a final forfeiture

judgment is in order for the Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS to:

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 6 of 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

7

1. GRANT plaintiff United States of America default judgment against the interests of

Onecimo Viveros, Edwar Lopez Rodriguez and Maria Delaluz Espindola in the

defendant 1998 Jeep Cherokee vehicle identification number 1J4GZ48S5WC293316,

California license number 5NOJ010;

2. ENTER final forfeiture judgment to vest in plaintiff United States of America all right,

title and interest in the defendant 1998 Jeep Cherokee vehicle identification number

1J4GZ48S5WC293316, California license number 5NOJ010; and

3. ORDER plaintiff United States of America, within 10 days of service of an order

adopting the findings and recommendations, to submit a proposed default and final

forfeiture judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations and order

adopting them.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than December 5,

2006, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties and otherwise in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

Responses to objections shall be filed and served no later than December 15, 2006 and otherwise in

compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(d). The district judge will review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s

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

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00183-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 7 of 7