Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02226/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02226-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ten (10) Firearms, Eleven (11) Rounds of

Ammunition; and $32,760.00 in U.S.

Currency. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2226-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises upon Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Default

Judgment, filed on March 24, 2008. (docket # 15) Neither putative Claimants nor their

counsel have filed a Response thereto.

The procedure in civil in rem forfeiture actions arising from a federal statute

is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent consistent with the

Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and otherwise by the

Supplemental Rules themselves. Supp. Rule G(1); United States v. One Glock 19, 2007 WL

2438361 (N.D. Cal. 2007); United States v. 3 Parcels in La Plata County, Colo., 919 F.Supp.

1449, 1452 (D. Nev. 1995) (in rem forfeiture action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881); United

States v. $38,570, 950 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir. 1992)

 In a civil case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) allows a defendant, or

claimant in a civil forfeiture action, twenty days (20) from the date of service of process to

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 Supp. Rule G(5)(b) provides: 

Answer. A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a

motion under Rule 12 within 20 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives

an objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by

motion or stated in the answer.

Supp. Rule G(5)(b)

2

 This Supp. Rule provides that “[n]otice may be sent to the potential claimant or to

the attorney representing the potential claimant with respect to the seizure of property or in

a related investigation, administrative forfeiture proceeding, or criminal case.” Supp. Rule

4(b)(iii)(B).

3

 The Court takes judicial notice that on December 7, 2007, Attorney Muñoz

represented, and still does, putative Claimant Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres in CR-07-402-PHXSMM, now a fugitive from justice. Mr. Munoz has also filed documents in this and a related

forfeiture proceeding, representing that he represents both putative Claimants. (docket # 9

- 2 -

answer or otherwise serve a responsive pleading. Rule 12(a)(1), FED.R.CIV.P.; Supp. Rule

G(5)(b).1

 If a defendant or claimant fails to respond within that deadline, a default judgment

may be entered. Rule 55(a), FED.R.CIV.P.; Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir.1986),

cert. denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice

and Procedure, § 2682, 3d Ed. (Supp. 2008). 

The Government’s Motion for Default Judgment represents that “[o]n

November 19, 2007, the government served, via certified mail 7003 1680 0007 2416 8034,

direct Notice of Forfeiture Action and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture upon Alejandro E.

Muñoz, Esq., 55 West Franklin Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701. (docket # 15 at 2) It also

indicates that “[o]n November 20, 2007, the government served, via certified mail 7003

1680 0007 2416 8027, direct Notice of Forfeiture and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture upon

Pedro Ivan ALVILLAR-TORRES, at his residence, 11000 West Frier Drive, Glendale,

Arizona 85307.” (Id. at 3) Pursuant to Supp. Rule 4(b)(iii)(B),2

 the Government claims that

“[o]n December 7, 2007, the government served, via certified mail 7003 1680 0007 2416

7990, direct Notice of Forfeiture Action and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture upon

Alejandro E. Muñoz, Esq., The Muñoz Law Firm, P.C., 55 West Franklin Street, Tucson,

Arizona 85701,” counsel for both putative Claimants.3

 (Id.) The Government alleges that

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 6
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

at 3)

4

 When direct notice of the action has been provided to a potential claimant, then,

pursuant to Supp. Rule G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & (C) a claim must be filed within 35 days after the

notice is sent, and an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 20 days

after filing the claim. Rule G(4) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and

Asset Forfeiture Claims.

5

 Counting 35 days from December 12, 2007, the date the Notice of Service was filed,

is January 16, 2008.

- 3 -

“[t]he Notice of Service [was] complete on December 10, 2007, as to Pedro Ivan

ALVILLAR-TORRES and Sandra Elizabeth CONTRERAS, [and] was filed with District

Court on December 12, 2007.” (Id.)

The Government further contends that, inter alia, (1) pursuant to Supp. Rule

G(4)(a)(i), “[t]he United States Marshal for the District of Arizona gave public notice of this

action and arrest [of the subject property] to all persons by advertisement in the Arizona

Business Gazette, pursuant to Arizona District Court General Order # 98-15 on December

20, 2007, December 27, 2007 and January 3, 2008,” and “[t]he content of this Notice of

Forfeiture complied with the requirements of Rule G(4)(b)(ii) of the Supplemental Rules for

Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims. (Id. at 4)

Pursuant to under Rule G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & (C)4

 and Rule 4(e) and (n),

FED.R.CIV.P., putative Claimants had, at the latest, until and including Wednesday, January

16, 2008,5

 to formally answer or otherwise plead without risking entry of default. No answer

or other pleading has been filed by or on the putative Claimants’ behalf pursuant to Rule 12,

FED.R.CIV.P., to today’s date. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant property

and the putative Claimants to conduct a default judgment hearing pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2),

Rule 12(a)(1), FED.R.CIV.P. Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) (A

federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has

been properly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4).

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

 Following entry of default, Rule 55(b)(2), FED.R.CIV.P., permits a district

court to enter final judgment in a case. Entry of default judgment, however, is not a matter

of right. Doe I v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1285-87 (N.D. Cal. 2004) Entry of a default

judgment is entirely within the district court’s discretion and may be refused where the

district court determines no justifiable claim has been alleged or that a default judgment is

inappropriate for other reasons. Id. (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir.

1986) and Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980)). 

In ruling on a motion to enter default judgment, the Ninth Circuit has

enumerated seven factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant a

default judgment: (1) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the

complaint; (3) the sum of money at stake in the action; (4) the possibility of prejudice to the

plaintiff; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default

was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure favoring decision on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986);

Truong Giany Corp. v. Twinstar Tea Corp., 2007 WL 1545173 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In

considering these factors, the district court may deem all factual allegations in the complaint

as true except for those relating to damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d

915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Since a default judgment hearing pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 55(b) is an

evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall call a witness(es) to prove Plaintiff’s claims for

the relief sought in its Complaint and shall introduce in evidence appropriate and relevant

exhibits except, if appropriate, reasonable attorney’s fees and non-taxable expenses shall be

proven by appropriate affidavit. Out-of-district witnesses may appear telephonically

pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 43(a) as good cause exists to reduce the costs of this litigation

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 4 of 6
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

6

 Rule 1, FED.R.CIV.P., provides that “These rules [of procedure]. . . shall be construed

and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”

(emphasis added).

7

 The Clerk erroneously entered putative Claimants’ default on March 21, 2008 prior

to the Court’s formal order to do so and before the April 7, 2008 OSC deadline. (docket # 9

at 6) Since neither the putative Claimants nor their counsel have shown cause in writing on

or before Monday, April 7, 2008 why a default and default judgment should not be entered

against Claimants and the subject property pursuant to Rule 55, FED.R.CIV.P., the Court will

not set aside the Clerk’s entry of default.

- 5 -

consistent with Rule 1, FED.R.CIV.P.6

 by promptly calling (602) 322-7620 at the designated

time.

Neither the putative Claimants nor their counsel have shown cause in writing

why a default7

 and/or a default judgment should not be entered against them and the subject

property. Moreover, the putative Claimants were clearly sent notice by means reasonably

calculated to reach them. United States v. Real Property . . . Lido Motel, 135 F.3d 1312,

1315-16 (9th Cir. 1998) (service on an incarcerated party by certified mail at the institution

of incarceration held sufficient); Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 38 (1st

Cir. 2001) (actual knowledge of the forfeiture proceedings might excuse what would

otherwise constitute a due process violation); Nunley v. Department of Justice, 425 F.3d

1132, 1139 (8th Cir. 2005) (one who had timely actual knowledge of an administrative

forfeiture could not complain about the constitutionality of the method used to provide

notice); Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857 (2d Cir.1997) (determining that Government

gave sufficient notice of administrative forfeiture proceeding when it delivered notice by

certified mail to incarcerated claimant’s attorney in related criminal proceeding); Mullane

v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1950) (noting that the mails

are recognized as an efficient and inexpensive means of communication that are generally

reasonably calculated to reach addressees). Furthermore, because putative Claimants failed

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 5 of 6
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

8

 Supp. R. G(4)(b) (v) provides:

Actual Notice. A potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture

action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because the government’s

failure to send the required notice.

Supp. R. G(4)(b) (v)

- 6 -

to file a claim or response, they lack the standing or authority to challenge the forfeiture.

United States v. Real Property . . . Lido Motel, 135 F.3d at 1316-17; Supp. R. G(4)(b) (v).8

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED setting a default judgment hearing before the undersigned

on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 302 at the Sandra Day O’Connor

U.S. Courthouse, Phoenix, Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall lodge in the

undersigned’s chamber’s emailbox by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 5, 2008 the following:

1. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

2. A proposed Default Judgment for the undersigned’s signature with

the identity of the specific property, and,

3. if appropriate in an in rem civil forfeiture action, an appropriate

affidavit to support an award for reasonable attorney’s fees and related

non-taxable expenses in compliance with LRCiv 54.2(d).

DATED this 10th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 6 of 6