Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00149-6/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 1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $1,200,000.00 IN

U.S. CURRENCY SEIZED FROM FIRST

CALIFORNIA BANK ACCT. NO.

2005638, ETC.,

Defendants.

2:05-CV-0149 DFL KJM

EX PARTE REQUEST TO SET A

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

CONFERENCE HEARING

EX PARTE APPLICATION

By Stipulation and Order filed May 10, 2005, the Court directed

counsel for the United States to cause this matter to be placed on the

Court’s calendar for a Status Conference within thirty days from the

conclusion of the federal criminal action presently pending against

potential claimant Schachter in the Eastern District of California,

or upon the expiration of seven months from the date of this order.

On November 21, 2005, the government notified the Court that the

criminal case against Schachter had terminated. Subsequently, the

Case 2:05-cv-00149-JAM-DAD Document 39 Filed 01/05/06 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

The United States is advised that claimant John W. Hollis 1

intends in the near future to notice a motion for hearing on either

February 1, 2006, or February 15, 2006. The Court may wish to set

this matter for a Status Conference on the same date and time as

Hollis’ anticipated motion. 

 The government does not concede that Boylan applies. 2

2

Court (Shubb, J.) set the matter for a Status (pretrial scheduling)

Conference. Before that conference could be conducted, however, the

Court issued a related case order, reassigning this case. See Related

Case Order filed December 8, 2005. 

Accordingly, the United States applies ex parte for an order

setting this matter for a Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference on

a date in late January or early February that may be convenient for

the Court. While the government recognizes that the Court is often 1

able to issue Scheduling Orders based on the written submissions of

the parties, the government requests that the Court set this matter

for a hearing. In light of United States v. $4,224,958.57, 392 F.3d

1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (?Boylan?), the government believes that this

case may raise extraordinary case management and scheduling

complexities, and thus it would be beneficial for the Court to conduct

a Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference. For example, if Boylan

applied to this action it conceivably requires this Court to give

notice to hundreds, if not thousands, of potential claimants, and

convert this forfeiture action into some sort of trust administration

proceeding. Id. at 1005. 

2

Dated: 12/22/05 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

 /s/ Courtney J. Linn 

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:05-cv-00149-JAM-DAD Document 39 Filed 01/05/06 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

ORDER

The government’s ex parte application is granted. This matter

is set for a Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference on February 15,

2006, at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 7. The parties shall submit

separate status reports of no more than 10 pages not less than five

court days prior to that date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/4/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00149-JAM-DAD Document 39 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 3