Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03646/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03646-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$30,790 IN UNITED STATES

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

NO. C05-3646 TEH

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

TO ENTERTAIN MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM DEFAULT

On April 5, 2006, this Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff United

States of America after rejecting Claimant Rosa Verdugo’s motion for relief from entry of

default. Verdugo’s appeal of the default judgment is currently pending before the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Verdugo now asks this Court to entertain or grant a motion for relief from default

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Verdugo seeks to argue that her former

counsel, Eileen Burke, was grossly negligent and that relief from default is therefore

appropriate under Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Although this Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case because it is pending on appeal,

the Ninth Circuit has advised that a party seeking Rule 60(b) relief should first ask the

district court if it wishes to entertain or grant the motion and then, if appropriate, move for

remand before the Court of Appeals. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984).

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ papers, this Court finds it appropriate to

entertain Verdugo’s motion. In so finding, the Court makes no determination about the

merits of Verdugo’s intended argument, and the Court may well ultimately deny Verdugo’s

request for relief from default. Nonetheless, the Court believes it would be in the interests of

judicial economy to entertain the motion because if Verdugo does have adequate grounds for

Case 3:05-cv-03646-TEH Document 40 Filed 10/27/06 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

relief, her current appeal need not be decided; if, on the other hand, this Court denies

Verdugo’s motion, the Ninth Circuit would be able to hear all of Verdugo’s arguments

against entry of default judgment at the same time. Accordingly, with good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Verdugo’s request to entertain motion for relief from default is GRANTED,

subject to the Ninth Circuit’s remand of this case.

2. Verdugo’s request to grant motion for relief from default is DENIED without

prejudice.

3. If the Ninth Circuit remands this case, then the parties shall meet and confer and,

within ten calendar days of the date on which jurisdiction is returned to this Court, shall file a

stipulation and proposed order regarding a briefing and hearing schedule on Verdugo’s

motion for relief from default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/27/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-03646-TEH Document 40 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 2