Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00845-2/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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2755

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) 2:05-CV-00845 LKK-DAD

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) EX PARTE APPLICATION 

) AND ORDER

APPROXIMATELY $234,625.00 ) CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

IN U.S. CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

EX PARTE APPLICATION

The United States applies ex parte for an order continuing

the Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference currently set for

October 24, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. The grounds for such application

are as follows:

1. This is a civil forfeiture action. The complaint for

forfeiture in rem filed April 28, 2005, alleges that the abovedescribed currency is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 881(a)(6). As alleged in the verified complaint (See Complaint

at ¶ 5.i) several individuals where at the residence at the time

of the search that lead to the seizure of the above-described 

Case 2:05-cv-00845-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 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

2

currency. All but one of these individuals has now been served

with notice, and the Clerk of the Court has entered a default

against each such individual. The United States continues to

make diligent efforts to give direct notice to one last

individual, Kari Bonham. However, the United States Marshals

Service advised that as of September 26, 2005, Kari Bonham had

not received personal notice. 

2. As matters stand, no party has appeared to contest the

forfeiture action. Thus, it would be premature at this time for

the United States to conduct a Rule 26(f) discovery conference,

and it would be premature for the Court to conduct a Status

Conference. Indeed, in the absence of a timely claim, the United

States intends to seek a default judgment, potentially obviating

the need for any Status Conference. Accordingly, the government

requests that the Court continue the Status (pretrial scheduling)

Conference approximately ninety days to allow the government to

complete the process of providing notice, and to allow time for

any potential claimants to appear in the action and file a timely

claim and answer. The Court has previously continued the Status

Conference on one prior occasion. See Order filed July 12, 2005. 

Dated: 10/11/05 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Courtney J. Linn

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

For good cause shown, the Status (pretrial scheduling) 

Conference set for October 24, 2005, be, and the same hereby is, 

Case 2:05-cv-00845-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 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

CONTINUED to January 23, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. Consistent with 

the Court's Order Setting Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference 

the parties shall submit status reports not less than ten court 

days prior to the Status Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2005. /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00845-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 3