Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06743/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06743-3/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

 Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)6) provides for the forfeiture of money that (a) is furnished or intended to 1

be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, (b) constitutes proceeds traceable to such an exchange,

or (c) that is used to facilitate a violation of the the laws governing controlled substances. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 1:04-cv-6743-LJO-TAG

)

Plaintiff, )

) SUA SPONTE ORDER REOPENING

vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT

) JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF

APPROXIMATELY $141,932.00 IN ) AND AGAINST CLAIMANT 

U.S. CURRENCY, ) (Doc. 22)

) 

 Defendant, ) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

) FURTHER BRIEF THE MOTION AS TO 

) WHETHER A PARTIAL JUDGMENT 

MARC STEVEN KALISH, ) CAN BE ENTERED IN AN IN REM

LIVING TREE COMPANY, INC., ) CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION

)

Claimants. )

____________________________________) 

Plaintiff, United States of America (“Plaintiff”), filed this in rem civil forfeiture action,

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), on December 23, 2004. (Doc. 1). This matter was referred to 1

the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303. On

January 28, 2005, Marc Steven Kalish (“Claimant”), through counsel, filed a notice of claim, and

on February 17, 2005, he filed a verified answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Docs. 6, 8). On May 31,

2007, Plaintiff moved this Court to compel Claimant to respond to its discovery requests, pursuant

to which an order to compel was entered on July 16, 2007. (Docs. 18, 21). 

On August 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this Court enter a default

Case 1:04-cv-06743-LJO -TAG Document 29 Filed 11/02/07 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

 Kalish filed the only notice of claim to the defendant rem. (Doc. 6). In his verified answer to the 2

complaint, however, Kalish adds his business – Living Tree Company, Inc. – as a claimant. (Doc. 8). In this

document, “Claimant” and “Claimants” will be used interchangeably to include both Kalish and Living Tree

Company, Inc.

2

judgment against Claimant only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) and Local 2

Rule 11-110, based on his failure to comply with the Court’s July 17, 2007, order compelling him

to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Doc. 21). (Doc. 22). The motion does not specify

whether Plaintiff requests entry of Claimant’s default, instead of a default judgment, does not 

request an in rem forfeiture judgment, and does not address compliance with the Supplemental

Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The Court took the motion under submission.

(See Entry 26). 

Upon further review of the motion and supporting documents, the undersigned, sua sponte,

REOPENS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 22) for further briefing on the following:

1. Whether it is appropriate to enter Claimant’s default, instead of a default judgment

against Claimant;

2. Whether a piecemeal judgment can be entered in an in rem civil forfeiture action, i.e.,

whether there is any legal authority allowing a district court to enter a default judgment against an

individual claimant without also entering an in rem judgment in the same order; and 

3. The legal procedure to cause an in rem forfeiture judgment to be issued in a civil

forfeiture action after a default judgment has been issued against a claimant, i.e., whether to do so 

will require subsequent motions for an in rem forfeiture judgment and for an amended judgment. 

 Plaintiff and Claimant are DIRECTED to file their respective briefs within ten (10) court

days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-06743-LJO -TAG Document 29 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 2