Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00436-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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

JANET SHERMAN (State Bar No. 98560)

SHERMAN & SHERMAN

A Professional Law Corporation

2115 Main Street

Santa Monica, California 90405

E-Mail: janetsher@aol.com

Tele: 310-399-3259

Fax: 310-392-9029

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG

Eric Honig (State Bar No. 140765)

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 10327

Marina del Rey, CA 90295

Telephone (310) 745-8264

Facsimile (310) 745-8267

Attorneys for Claimants

John W. Hollis and Judith L.

Hollis, Individually and as 

Trustees of the Three Thirty

Eight Trust

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

8617 SOUTH SUN BAR RANCH

PLACE, VAIL, PIMA COUNTY,

ARIZONA, APN: 205-75-11504,

INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES

AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,

 

 Defendants. 

 ________________________________

John W. Hollis and Judith L. Hollis,

Individually and as Trustees of the

Three Thirty Eight Trust,

Claimants.

 ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:06-CV-00436-DFL-DAD

STIPULATION AND REQUEST 

TO STAY ACTION PENDING

CONCLUSION OF RELATED

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION;

ORDER THEREON

Case 2:06-cv-00436-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff United States of America (“plaintiff” or the “government”)

commenced this civil forfeiture action on March 2, 2006. Plaintiff alleges the 

defendant property constitutes proceeds traceable to fraudulent conduct and is

therefore subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981.

On May 11, 2006, claimants John W. Hollis and Judith L. Hollis,

Individually and as Trustees of the Three Thirty Eight Trust (“Claimants”) filed a

Statement of Interest in the defendant property. On October 26, 2006, claimants

filed their Answer under seal. 

Claimant John W. Hollis is the subject of a criminal investigation arising

out of the same criminal conduct upon which the government’s civil forfeiture action

is based (the “related criminal investigation”). Title 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2) provides

that upon motion of a claimant, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding

where the claimant is the subject of a related criminal investigation or case, the

claimant has standing to assert a claim, and continuation of the forfeiture proceeding

would implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 981(g)(1) further provides that upon motion of the

United States, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court

determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to

conduct a related criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case. 

In this case, if this civil case were not stayed, claimant Hollis would depose the law

enforcement officers who were involved in the related criminal investigation and

would serve document requests on the Government. Allowing claimant Hollis to

pursue discovery at this time would provide him with discovery to which he is not

otherwise entitled under the criminal discovery rules and could jeopardize the

investigation.

Accordingly, plaintiff and claimants, by and through their respective

counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court stay this action for 180

days, until April 27, 2007. At that time, the parties will inform the Court of the 

Case 2:06-cv-00436-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

status of the related criminal investigation or if an indictment has been issued, and

will either seek a further stay of discovery or will ask the court to fully schedule the

case if the related criminal case has been completed.

DATED: October ___, 2006 SHERMAN & SHERMAN

A Professional Law Corporation

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG

By: ___________________________

Janet Sherman

Attorneys for Claimants

DATED: October ___, 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

___________________________

Kristin Door, 

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

O R D E R

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: October 30, 2006 /s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00436-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3