Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04202/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04202-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA STAR SEAFOOD 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-4202 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction came on for hearing before this court on

August 2, 2006 and August 9, 2006, respectively. Plaintiff, Virginia Star Seafood

Corporation (“plaintiff”), appeared through its counsel, Leslie T. Krasny. Defendants,

Alberto R. Gonzales, et al. (collectively the “United States of America” or “defendant”),

appeared through its counsel, Stephanie Hinds. Having read the parties’ papers and

carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion, for the reasons stated at the

hearing, and summarized as follows.

Plaintiff’s underlying complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed as a result of

defendant’s seizure of plaintiff’s property, seeks three forms of relief: (1) a declaration that

defendant has violated plaintiff’s due process rights by failing to institute civil forfeiture

proceedings with respect to the property in question; (2) the issuance of a preliminary

injunction in order to enjoin defendant from instituting forfeiture proceedings against

plaintiff; and (3) an order directing defendant to return the property at issue to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction seeks the same. 

However, defendant’s recent filing of a civil forfeiture action with respect to plaintiff’s

Case 4:06-cv-04202-PJH Document 27 Filed 08/16/06 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

2

property, United States of America v. Approximately Three Hundred & Sixty Thousand

Eight Hundred & Four (360,804) Pounds of Fish, C 06-4675 PJH, effectively moots the first

two requests for relief. Accordingly, the only issue before the court is whether a preliminary

injunction should issue requiring defendant to return plaintiff’s property. 

As to this issue, the only basis on which plaintiff might succeed in prevailing is by

demonstrating his underlying claim that defendant’s delay in instituting the above forfeiture

action constitutes a due process violation. Plaintiff argues that its property is reaching the

end of its shelf life, and that without an immediate return of the property, plaintiff will lose

the substantial monetary value that the property is worth. This argument, however, is

insufficient to prove that plaintiff’s due process rights have been violated, since it is based

on the probability of a future violation, rather than an actual one. Until plaintiff can

affirmatively state that it has suffered a real loss to property, by way of defendant’s

wrongful detention of the property, there can be no basis for its claim that an actual

violation has occurred.

For these reasons, until the court has resolved the merits of defendant’s recently

filed forfeiture action, and affirmatively determined whether defendant’s detention of

plaintiff’s property is justified, the court cannot determine the merits of plaintiff’s due

process claim, or grant the instant preliminary injunction. The court accordingly rules as

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

2. All further proceedings in the underlying action are STAYED, pending

resolution of the related and above-referenced civil forfeiture action. 

3. In the event defendant is not able to succeed on the merits of the civil

forfeiture action, plaintiff may choose to proceed against defendant for any

property loss that has occurred either pursuant to applicable civil forfeiture

statutes, or pursuant to its underlying claim for violation of due process rights. 

In such case, plaintiff may request leave from the court to amend its

Case 4:06-cv-04202-PJH Document 27 Filed 08/16/06 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

underlying complaint to include additional remedies sought, if any. 

4. Finally, the parties are further ORDERED to attend a case management

conference in the related civil forfeiture action, case no. C 06-4675 PJH, on

August 31, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The parties shall submit a joint case

management conference statement no later than August 28, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04202-PJH Document 27 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 3