Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01878/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01878-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 26, 2016, the Court granted in part a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

regarding Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. See Doc. No. 13. The Court did not grant a 

complete default because it had concerns about whether direct notice was provided or reasonably 

could have been provided to the purported owner “Marcia” of the vehicle or to the registered 

owner of the vehicle (the Defendant funds were found in SUV). See id. The Court requested that 

Plaintiff provide supplemental briefing regarding the owner of the vehicle and “Marcia.” See id. 

On June 8, 2016, the United States responded by requesting that the Court allow 60 days for the 

registered owner of the vehicle to be given notice and to file a claim if she intends to do so. See

Doc. No. 14. If no notice of claim is filed, then Plaintiff states that it will move for default 

judgment. See id. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to attempt to provide direct notice to the 

registered owner of the vehicle. However, as discussed in the Court’s May 26, 2016 order, the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

APPROXIMATELY $460,520.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1878 AWI MJS 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES 

ADDITIONAL TIME TO DIRECTLY 

SERVE NOTICE TO POTENTIAL 

CLAIMANT

(Doc. No. 14)

Case 1:15-cv-01878-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Court understands that law enforcement actually spoke on the phone to someone named “Marcia,” 

who purported to be the owner of the vehicle. Vehicles may be sold, and there may be lag times 

or oversites in the registration/transfer process. Therefore, unless it can be determined that the 

“Marcia” who spoke to law enforcement is the registered owner of the vehicle, Plaintiff shall

attempt to provide direct notice not only to the registered owner, but also to “Marcia,” if possible.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for 60 days in which to provide direct notice to the owner of the vehicle 

is GRANTED;

2. Within 60 days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall attempt to provide direct notice to 

the registered owner of the vehicle in question and to “Marcia”; and

3. If, after direct notice is accomplished, no claim is filed, then Plaintiff may file a motion for 

default judgment.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

If law enforcement determined who “Marcia” was when they spoke to her, and obtained contact information for her, 

then it should be relatively easy to provide “Marcia” with direct notice. If the information law enforcement obtained 

is not accurate or no longer valid, then direct notice to “Marcia” may not be possible.

2 The motion for default judgment should address the registered owner and “Marcia.”

Case 1:15-cv-01878-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2