Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00482/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00482-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:0881 Forfeiture Property - Drugs

---

– 1 – 18cv482

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$40,000 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE 

ANSWER AND DENYING 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE REQUEST 

FOR ENTRY OF A DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 9]

AND

(2) STRIKING ANSWER

[ECF No. 7]

I. BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff United States filed the Complaint in this case, alleging 

that the Defendant $40,000 in U.S. currency is money furnished or intended to be furnished 

in exchange for contraband and subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 

(ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that on November 2, 2017, federal law enforcement 

agents seized Defendant $40,000 in U.S. Currency at the San Diego International Airport 

after conducting a consensual search of a carry-on bag in Rodrigo Marquez’s (“Marquez”) 

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
– 2 – 18cv482

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

possession. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6H, 8, 9, 17.) Within two days of filing of the Complaint, 

Plaintiff provided Rodrigo Marquez and his attorney, Todd J. Hilts, with a notice of judicial 

forfeiture proceedings (the “Notice”) and a copy of the Complaint. (ECF No. 9-2.) The 

Notice instructed that pursuant to Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and 

Maritime Claims and Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”), Marquez had to file a

verified claim for the Defendant with the Clerk of this Court within 35 days after service 

of the Notice, or additional time as the Court may allow. (Id. at 1–2.) The Notice further 

instructed Marquez that he needed to file an answer to the Complaint or a Rule 12 motion 

within 21 days after the filing of the verified claim. (Id. at 2.) 

Upon the failure of any claimant to file a timely verified claim or answer to the 

Complaint, Plaintiff requested an entry of default on May 24, 2018, specifically against 

Rodrigo Marquez (“Marquez”) and all other potential claimants. (ECF No. 6.) In the hours 

following that request, Marquez filed an Answer to the Complaint through his attorney. 

(ECF No. 7.) The Clerk of the Court entered default against the Defendant on the following 

day. (ECF No. 8.) 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(8) to strike 

Marquez’s Answer and a motion for entry of a default judgment. (ECF No. 9.) Marquez

has not opposed the motion. For the reasons herein, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to 

strike, denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for entry of a default judgment, and 

strikes Marquez’s Answer.

II ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules, “a person who asserts an interest 

in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the 

action is pending.” Rule G(5)(a)(i). The claim must identify the specific property claimed, 

identify the claimant and state the claimant's interest in the property, be signed by the 

claimant under penalty of perjury, and be served on the government attorney identified in 

the government’s notice of judicial proceedings. See Rule G(5)(a)(i)(A)–(D). Rule G(5) 

also identifies default time limits regarding when a claim must be filed. Relevant to the 

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
– 3 – 18cv482

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

present motion, “[u]nless the court for good cause sets a different time, the claim must be 

filed by the time stated in a direct notice sent under Rule G(4)(b).” Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(A). 

Rule G(5) also establishes a time requirement for the claimant’s response to the complaint. 

“A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 

within 21 days after filing the claim.” Rule G(5)(b). 

The Supplemental Rules contemplate some consequences for failure to follow the 

time requirements of Rule G(5). In relevant part, “the government may move to strike a 

claim or answer for failing to comply with Rule G(5)[.]” Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A). In its motion

to strike, Plaintiff argues that Marquez’s Answer should be stricken because he has failed 

to file a verified claim. The Court agrees.

Of the procedural requirements applicable to civil asset forfeiture actions, “[t]he 

most significant requirement is that the claimant must timely file a verified statement of 

interest[.]” U.S. v. $487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007). This 

requirement serves two purposes. First, it ensures that claimants come forward as soon as 

possible so that the court “may hear all interested parties and resolve the dispute without 

delay.” United States v. $8,822,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 150 n.9 (3d Cir. 

2003); see also $487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d at 664. Second, it decreases the 

likelihood of false claims by requiring claims be verified. 487, 825.00 in U.S. Currency,

484 F.3d at 664. Because of the purposes underlying the time requirements for the filing 

of a verified claim, courts have “repeatedly emphasized that forfeiture claimants must 

strictly adhere to the filing requirements.” Id. at 665; see also United States v. 5145 N. 

Golden State Blvd., 135 F.3d 1312, 1316–17 (9th Cir. 1998). 

The Notice the government provided Marquez expressly set a 35 day time-limit for 

Marquez to file a verified claim in this Court. Marquez’s attorney received the Notice on 

March 8, 2018. (ECF No. 9-2 at 3–6.) Marquez was thus required to file a verified claim 

no later than April 12, 2018. Despite that deadline, Marquez has never filed a verified 

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
– 4 – 18cv482

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

claim for the Defendant with this Court.1 The Answer filed by Marquez purports to contain

a verification by Marquez under California state law. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) But the Answer 

“contains no description of [Marquez’s] interest in the property”—a requirement of Rule 

G(5)—and “[t]hus, there is no question that this document is not a verified statement.” 

$487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 665; see also Rule G(5)(a)(i)(A).

Courts have “discretion to overlook the failure to conform to the requirements” of a 

forfeiture claim. United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Dr., Alamo, Cal., 194 

F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 1999). Indeed, as the Court has observed, Rule G(5) permits a 

court to set the filing deadline of a verified claim to “different time for good cause.” Rule 

G(5)(a)(ii)(A). Courts may consider various factors in determining whether to excuse a 

claimant’s failure to comply with timing requirement, including: the claimant’s good faith 

attempts to comply with procedural requirements; the date upon which the claimant 

received notice of the pending forfeiture action; any requests by the claimant to amend the 

pleadings or for an extension of time; any reasons proffered by the claimant for the 

omission; and whether prejudice to the United States will result from excusing the 

claimant’s procedural errors. See United States v. $22,226.25 in Interbank FX Account No. 

xxx0172, 763 F. Supp. 2d 944, 948 (E.D. Tenn. 2011) (citation omitted). 

The Court, however, cannot find good cause to excuse the timing requirements in 

this case. First, Marquez has never requested additional time to file a verified claim, nor 

has he explained his failure to file a timely claim. Second, Marquez is not a pro se claimant 

who should be excused from strict compliance with these procedural requirements. See 

$22,226.25 in Interbank FX Account No. xxx0172, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 948 (explaining that 

 

1 Although the Complaint alleges that Marquez filed an administrative “Petition for 

Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture” with the Drug Enforcement Administration

(“DEA”) on December 18, 2017 (Compl. ¶ 18), that petition does not qualify as a verified 

claim. “A petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture is a petition for administrative 

relief, not judicial relief.” United States v. $2,857.00, 754 F.2d 208, 214 (7th Cir.1984). It 

is the filing of a verified claim with an appropriate court which advises that court of the 

intent to seek judicial relief. 

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
– 5 – 18cv482

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

“[i]n some circumstances . . . especially where claimants are proceeding pro se, courts may 

excuse” non-compliance (citation omitted)). Marquez is not pro se. In fact, the Notice is 

addressed to the same attorney who filed Marquez’s Answer and also filed Marquez’s 

administrative petition with the DEA. (Compare ECF No. 9-2 with ECF No. 7 (Answer) 

and ECF No. 9-3 (Marquez’s DEA petition).) Third, Marquez has not shown good faith 

attempts to comply with the procedural requirements. Even the untimely Answer Marquez 

filed some 77 days after receipt of the Notice and in the hours following the government’s 

request for default, fails to comply with Rule G(5)’s verified claim requirement. These 

circumstances underscore the need to strictly enforce the procedural requirements of Rule 

G(5). And the Court will do so here by granting Plaintiff’s motion to strike Marquez’s 

Answer. 

Plaintiff has also requested that the Court enter a default judgment against Marquez 

and any other potential claimants as a “sanction” for Marquez’s failure to comply with 

Rule G(5)(b). (ECF No. 9.) A court may enter a default judgment as a sanction for a 

party’s failure to obey a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, 

including in a civil asset forfeiture action. See United States v. Approximately $ 141,932.00 

in United States Currency, No. 04-cv-6743-LJO-TAG, 2008 WL 190878, at *8 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 18, 2008) (discussing standard for entry of default judgment as a sanction and applying 

standard to civil forfeiture case). However, Plaintiff does not explain how Marquez 

violated a court order through his failure to comply with the procedural rules in this case. 

The Court will not enter a default judgment as a sanction.

Even so, Plaintiff will still have the opportunity to move for a default judgment 

against the Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) in light of 

the striking of Marquez’s Answer. See, e.g., United States v. $3,275.00 in United States 

Currency, No. 12-cv-543-L(WVG), 2013 WL 1285141 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013) (granting 

motion for default judgment in civil forfeiture action pursuant to Rule 55(b)). Any motion 

Plaintiff files should identify the appropriate default judgment standard, explain how the 

Complaint satisfies the requirements for a civil asset forfeiture action, and provide an 

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
– 6 – 18cv482

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

appropriate default judgment order. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s request for the entry of a default judgment. 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF 

No. 9), (2) STRIKES Marquez’s Answer (ECF No. 7); and (3) DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment. Plaintiff may file a motion 

for entry of a default judgment against the Defendant no later than August 31, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00482-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6