Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01265-1/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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

KRISTIN S. DOOR, SBN 84307

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916)554-2723

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:07-CV-01265 LEW-JFM

)

Plaintiff, ) STATUS REPORT AND 

) REQUEST FOR STAY AND ORDER

v. ) THEREON

)

2006 CHRYSLER 300 LIMITED, )

VIN: 2C3KA53G06H145110, )

LICENSE NUMBER 5NWX410, ) DATE: N/A

) TIME: N/A

Defendant. ) COURTROOM: N/A

______________________________)

Pursuant to this Court's Order of June 27, 2007, plaintiff

submits the following Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Report and

Request for Stay. Counsel for claimant contributed to the

contents of this report but despite diligent efforts by

undersigned counsel she has been unable to obtain counsel’s

signature on this document. 

A. THE NATURE OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff seeks to forfeit the defendant property under 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) on the theory that the defendant vehicle was

used to transport, or the facilitate the transportation, sale,

receipt, possession, or concealment of a controlled substance in

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 7
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

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On December 13, 2006,

agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration searched the

defendant vehicle under the authority of a federal search warrant

and found amphetamine, cocaine base, hydrocodone tablets, papers

that appear to documents outstanding drug debts, and a digital

electronic scale in the vehicle. 

B. PROGRESS IN THE SERVICE OF PROCESS:

The registered owners of the vehicle, Joanne Rudulph and

Cleo Johnson, were personally served with the Complaint for

Forfeiture In Rem, Notice of Complaint, Application and Order for

Publication, and Court Notices on June 28, 2007. In addition,

the above-described documents were sent by certified mail to the

registered owners on June 28, 2007. 

Only Cleo Johnson filed a claim to the property, but both

Johnson and Rudulph filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 30,

2007. State drug charges are pending against Rudulph and she is

currently set to go to trial on those charges on October 4, 2007. 

C. POSSIBLE JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES:

None. 

D. ANY EXPECTED OR DESIRED AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS:

None. 

E. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

This Court's jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and

1355.

F. ANTICIPATED MOTIONS AND THE SCHEDULING THEREOF:

Plaintiff has advised Rudulph’s attorney that she lacks

statutory standing to contest this forfeiture since she failed to

file a claim to the property, as required by Rule G(5) of the

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions. Accordingly, unless Rudulph voluntarily

withdraws her answer, Plaintiff will move to strike the answer.

In addition, the Plaintiff intends to file a motion for

summary judgment at the close of discovery. 

Claimant intends to depose the officers involved in the

investigation that led to Joanne Rudulph’s arrest. 

Because the parties request a 90-day stay of further

proceedings as set forth below, the parties do not request that a

motion schedule be set at this time.

G. ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY AND THE SCHEDULING THEREOF,

INCLUDING:

(1) what changes, if any, should be made in

the timing, form, or requirements for

disclosure under Rule 26(a), including a

statement as to when disclosures under Rule

26(a)(1) were made or will be made;

As of the December 1, 2006, amendments to Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, civil forfeiture actions are

now exempt from the initial disclosure requirements applicable to

most other civil actions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(E)(ii).

(2) the subjects on which discovery may be

needed, when discovery should be completed,

and whether discovery should be conducted in

phases or be limited to or focused upon

particular issues;

Plaintiff will focus discovery on the true ownership of the

defendant vehicle and how the seized drugs came to be in the

vehicle. 

(3) what changes, if any, should be made in

the limitations on discovery imposed under

the Civil Rules and what other limitations,

if any, should be imposed;

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 3 of 7
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

No changes are necessary.

(4) the timing of the disclosure of expert

witnesses and information required by Rule

26(a)(2);

The parties do not believe that non-retained percipient

witness experts such as law enforcement officers need to be

disclosed as experts, or reports produced, under Rule 26(a)(2)

but agree that any expert "retained or specially employed" by

either party shall be disclosed, and a report produced, in

accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The parties agree that, to the

extent that drug evidence seized has been, or will be examined by

an employee of any state, local, or federal agency, that

production of the laboratory analysis, in the usual format

provided to criminal defendants, will satisfy the requirement of

the production of a "report" under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 

Because the parties request a 90-day stay, the parties

suggest that fully scheduling this case at this time is

premature. 

H. FUTURE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING SETTING APPROPRIATE

CUT-OFF DATES FOR DISCOVERY, LAW AND MOTION, AND THE

SCHEDULING OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL:

Because the parties request a stay they do not request that

the case be fully scheduled at this time.

I. APPROPRIATENESS OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES:

None.

J. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME:

The parties estimate two days for a court trial.

K. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD PRETRIAL PROCEDURES SPECIFIED

BY THE RULES DUE TO THE RELATIVE SIMPLICITY OR

COMPLEXITY OF THE ACTION OF PROCEEDINGS:

None.

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

L. WHETHER THE CASE IS RELATED TO ANY OTHER CASE, 

INCLUDING ANY MATTERS IN BANKRUPTCY:

The parties are not aware of any related case.

M. WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SHOULD BE SCHEDULED:

The parties do not believe a settlement conference is

appropriate in this case.

N. ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY ADD TO THE JUST AND

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSITION OF THIS MATTER:

The parties request that all proceedings in this case be

stayed for 90 days. This stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i). As set forth

in detail in ¶ A above, the plaintiff contends that the defendant

vehicle was used to facilitate violations of the Controlled

Substances Act. 

Joanne Rudulph, one of the registered owners of the

vehicles, is scheduled to start trial on state drug charges on

October 4, 2007. Nevertheless, the plaintiff intends to depose

Rudulph regarding her ownership of the defendant vehicle and its

use in violation of federal law. If Rudulph invokes her Fifth

Amendment right, the plaintiff will be deprived of the ability to

explore the factual basis for Johnson’s claim that Rudulph has no

ownership interest in the car (even though her name appears on

title and insurance document) and the claim that the vehicle was

unlawfully used without Johnson’s knowledge. 

Until the criminal case now pending in state court is over,

Ms. Rudulph will undoubtedly invoke her Fifth Amendment right

against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. 

Claimant Johnson, the other registered owner of the vehicle

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 5 of 7
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

and Ms. Rudulph’s mother, also intends to depose Rudulph to

obtain testimony supporting Johnson’s claim that if Rudulph in

fact used the defendant vehicle in violation of federal law, it

was done without claimant Johnson’s knowledge or consent. If

discovery proceeds at this time, Rudulph will be placed in the

difficult position of either invoking her Fifth Amendment right

against self-incrimination and losing the ability to provide

evidence that might help her mother, claimant Cleo Johnson,

pursue Johnson’s claim to the defendant property, or waiving her

Fifth Amendment right and submitting to a deposition and

potentially incriminating herself. Thus, claimant Johnson also

requests that this matter be stayed until Rudulph’s criminal

matter has been resolved so that she, too, can questions Rudulph

at a deposition. 

 Accordingly, the parties recognize that proceeding with

this action at this time has potential adverse affects on the

investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon

claimant's ability to prove her claim to the property and assert

any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties

jointly request that this matter be stayed for 90 months. At

that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the

state criminal charges and will advise the court whether a

further stay is necessary.

Date: October 4, 2007

McGREGOR SCOTT 

United States Attorney

By /s/ Kristin S. Door

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for plaintiff

United States of America

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. §

881(i) for 90 days. On or before January 4, 2008, the parties

will advise the Court whether a further stay is necessary.

If the parties do not request a further stay, they will

submit a joint status report on January 4, 2008, addressing the

issues listed in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report filed

herein on June 27, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2007 _____________________________

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01265-JAM -JFM Document 9 Filed 10/05/07 Page 7 of 7