Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01169/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01169-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2026

SOUTH PLANO STREET, PORTERVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, TULARE COUNTY APN

270-110-043, INCLUDING ALL

APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS

THERETO,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1169 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 4/1/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 4/15/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 5/1/09

Settlement Conference Date:

4/15/09 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 7/13/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 8/25/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (CT-2 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 4, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Gary Huss, Esq., appeared on behalf of Claimants Luis

Barraza Meza and Gladis A. Barraza. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 10
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This is an in rem civil forfeiture action. In its

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, the government alleges

that the Defendant property located at 2026 S. Plano Street,

Porterville, California, Tulare County, APN: 270-110-042

(hereafter “Defendant real property”) was used or intended to be

used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the

commission of, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq., and is

therefore subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to

21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). 

2. The Defendant real property was posted with copies of

the complaint and notice of the complaint on September 19, 2006. 

Notice of the forfeiture action was published on December 6, 13,

20, and 27, 2006, in the Visalia Times-Delta (Tulare County)

pursuant to the Order of Publication filed November 8, 2006. A

Proof of Publication was filed on March 5, 2007.

3. Luis Barraza Meza was personally served on or about

September 22, 2006, with copies of the complaint, notice of

complaint, application and order for publication, lis pendens,

order setting mandatory scheduling conference, standing order in

all civil cases assigned to U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger,

notice of availability of Magistrate Judge, and notice of dispute

resolution.

4. On or about September 22, 2006, Gladis A. Barraza was

served the above-listed documents through her husband, Luis

Barraza Meza, a person of suitable age and discretion then

residing in the potential claimant’s usual place of abode. On or

about November 14, 2006, the government sent the above-listed

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 10
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

documents to Gladis A. Barraza via certified mail.

5. On or about February 15, 2007, an unverified Claim and

Request for Judicial Forfeiture was filed on behalf of Luis

Barraza and Gladis Barraza. On or about February 23, 2007, an

Answer to the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem was filed

on behalf of Luis Barraza and Gladis Barraza. Additionally, on

September 14, 2007, a Claim was filed on behalf of Luis Barraza

and Gladis Barraza.

6. As of the date of the filing of this report, no other

potential claimants have filed claims or answers, or otherwise

appeared in this action. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not propose any amendments to the

existing pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. It is uncontested that law enforcement officers

executed a federal search warrant at the Defendant real property

on August 24, 2005. 

2. Heroin, approximately 3,223 grams of

methamphetamine, a total of four firearms, a box of .20 gauge

ammunition, two scales and various other items of narcotics

indicia were located and seized from the Defendant real property.

3. The Defendant real property was posted with notice

of this forfeiture action on September 9, 2006. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Plaintiff contends the facts are as stated in its

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 10
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

Verified Complaint. 

2. Claimants Luis Barraza and Gladis Barraza contest

the allegations of facts as set forth in the Plaintiff’s Verified

Complaint, except to the extent that those alleged facts were

expressly admitted in Claimants’ Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem. Claimants further

contend that if the facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in its

Verified Complaint, or any part thereof, are found to be true,

that the Claimants, and each of them, had no information, belief

and/or knowledge of same; that they were bonafide purchasers for

value of the subject property, and that they, and each of them,

are entitled to remission of the forfeited property. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and

1355. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1395.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether or not the real party is forfeitable to

the United States.

2. Whether or not forfeiture of the real property

would constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 10
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

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties agree that non-retained percipient witness

experts such as law enforcement officers need to be disclosed as

experts, or expert reports produced, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2) only to the extent they will be called on to present

expert testimony beyond their involvement as percipient witnesses

in this case and agree that any expert “retained or specially

employed” by either party shall be disclosed, and a report

produced, in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The parties agree

that, to the extent that drug evidence seized has been, or will

be examined by an employee of any state, local, or federal

agency, that production of the laboratory analysis, in the usual

format provided to criminal Defendants, will satisfy the

requirement of the production of a “report” under Rule

26(a)(2)(B). 

2. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall disclose the

identity of an expert “retained or specially employed” to provide

expert testimony.

3. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before December 5, 2008.

4. The parties are directed to disclose, simultaneously,

all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before February 2, 2009. 

The parties are directed to disclose, simultaneously, rebuttal or

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 10
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

supplemental experts on or before March 2, 2009. The parties

will comply with the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a) regarding their expert designations. Local Rule

16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written designation of experts

shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and

(B) and shall include all information required thereunder. 

Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may

result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence

offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to

this order.

5. The parties are ordered to complete all expert discovery

on or before April 1, 2009.

6. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before April 15, 2009, and

heard on May 22, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 6 of 10
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

filed no later than May 1, 2009, and will be heard on June 8,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. July 13, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. August 25, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a non-jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 2 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for April 15,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 7 of 10
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

8

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 8 of 10
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

9

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. This matter is related to U.S. v. Ignacio Arechiga,

1:05-cr-0294 OWW (a fugitive), which is currently pending and

U.S. v. Manuel Beltran, 1:05-cr-0292 OWW, wherein Defendant

Manuel Beltran pled guilty to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) - Possession

with Intent to Distribute Heroin. 

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 9 of 10
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

10

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01169-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 01/09/08 Page 10 of 10