Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00250-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property - Real Estate

---

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-00250-GEB-EFB

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) JOINT STATUS REPORT, 

v. ) REQUEST FOR STAY AND

) PROPOSED ORDER

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 761 )

MAGNOLIA ROAD, MARYSVILLE, ) 

CALIFORNIA, YUBA COUNTY, ) DATE: April 23, 2007

APN: 005-170-013, INCLUDING ) TIME: 9:00 a.m.

ALL APPURTENANCES AND ) COURTROOM: 10

IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, )

)

 Defendant. )

______________________________)

The parties submit the following Joint Status Report, 

Request for Stay, and Proposed Order pursuant this Court's

February 8, 2007, order:

a. Service:

The forfeiture complaint in rem was served on all

individuals and entities believed to have an interest in the

defendant real property. Specifically, the recorded owner of the

property, Foster Cornelius, was served. In addition, Bank of

America, the beneficiary of two liens recorded against the

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

Plaintiff lodged an Application and Order for 1

Publication on February 8, 2007. The Order was signed on March

23, 2007. On March 26, 2007 plaintiff requested the U.S. Marshal

to publish notice of the action in the Appeal Democrat. The

notice will be published once per week for four weeks.

Accordingly, at this time publication is not complete. 

2

property, was served with the complaint by certified mail on

February 12, 2007. 

In addition, notice of this action will or has been

published in the Yuba County Appeal Democrat. 1

b. Possible joinder of additional parties:

Plaintiff does not anticipate joining additional parties but

it is possible that Bank of America will still file a claim and

answer. Even though the time has passed for the filing of a

claim and answer, the plaintiff would not object to the bank's

claim since the bank has a recorded lien against the property,

and any forfeiture of the property would have to take these liens

into account. 

In addition, any person who sees the notice in the Appeal

Democrat may file a claim within 30 days of the last publication

date. Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B) of the Supplemental Rules for

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions

provides that a person other than one who has been served with

the Complaint may file a claim within 30 days of the last

publication date. 

c. Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings:

None anticipated at this time.

d. Jurisdiction and venue:

This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355. This Court has venue pursuant to 28

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

U.S.C. § 1395.

e. Anticipated motions and suggested dates:

In light of the parties' joint request for a 6-month stay

(see below), the parties do not request that motion dates be

scheduled at this time.

f. Anticipated and outstanding discovery:

(1) What changes should be made in the timing,

form, or requirement for disclosures under

Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when

disclosures under subdivision (a)(1) were

made or will be made:

(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: 

(3) What changes should be made in the

limitations on discovery imposed under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the Local

Rules, and what other limitations should be

imposed:

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).

In addition, rather than fully schedule this case at this

time, the parties jointly request a 6-month stay of further

proceedings in this matter, subject to the right of the Bank of

America and others who see the published Notice of Forfeiture to

file a claim and answer. 

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1),

981(g)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i). The plaintiff contends that

the defendant real property was used to facilitate violations of

the Controlled Substances Act because it was used to grow

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

marijuana. 

To date claimant Foster Cornelius, the owner of the

property, has not been charged with any criminal offense by

state, local, or federal authorities, and the statute of

limitations has not expired on potential criminal charges

relating to the marijuana. Nevertheless, the plaintiff intends

to depose claimant Cornelius regarding his claim and his

knowledge and participation, if any, in the marijuana operation. 

If discovery proceeds at this time, claimant will be placed in

the difficult position of either invoking his Fifth Amendment

right against self-incrimination and losing the ability to pursue

his claim to the defendant real property, or waiving his Fifth

Amendment right and submitting to a deposition and potentially

incriminating himself. If he invokes his Fifth Amendment right,

the plaintiff will be deprived of the ability to explore the

factual basis for the claim he filed with this court. 

In addition, claimant intends to depose the Yuba County

deputies involved in the discovery of several hundred marijuana

plants on the defendant property in 2005, and the execution of a

federal search warrant at the defendant property August 16, 2006,

which led to the discovery of approximately 100 marijuana plants

under cultivation and a large quantity of processed marijuana.

Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time

would adversely affect the ability of state, local, or federal

authorities to investigate the underlying criminal conduct.

 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

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

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

any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties

jointly request that this matter be stayed for 6 months. At that

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

criminal investigation, if any, and will advise the court whether

a further stay is necessary.

A stay will also permit the plaintiff additional time to

determine whether Bank of America intends to file a claim and

answer. Finally, since it is possible that other claims may be

filed within 30 days of the last publication date, a stay will

allow those claims to be filed and those claimants to participate

in the scheduling of this case. 

g. Scheduling of future proceedings, including

suggested timing of the disclosure of expert

witnesses and information required by Rule

26(a)(2), completion dates for discovery and

law and motion, and dates for final pretrial

conference and trial:

In light of the requested stay, the parties ask that the

case not be scheduled at this time. 

i. Estimate of trial time:

Plaintiff estimates that a trial of this matter would take

no more than 3 days. 

j. Appropriateness of special procedures:

Not applicable.

k. Modification of standard pretrial procedures

because of the relative simplicity or

complexity of the action or proceedings:

Not applicable.

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

l. Whether the case is related to any other

case, including any matters in bankruptcy:

The parties are aware of no other related cases before this

Court.

m. Prospects for settlement:

The parties are unable to assess the likelihood of

settlement at this time.

 n. Any other matters that may add to the just

and expeditious disposition of this matter:

None.

DATED: April 9, 2007 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Kristin S. Door 

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

DATED: April 10, 2007 /s/Dain Weiner for David 

Weiner 

DAVID WEINER

Attorney for claimant

Foster Cornelius

(Original signature retained

by plaintiff's counsel)

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 six months. On or before October 15, 2007 the parties

will advise the Court whether a further stay is necessary.

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 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

The scheduling conference scheduled for April 23, 2007 is

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00250-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/11/07 Page 7 of 7