Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01161/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01161-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPROXIMATELY & $99,900 IN US

CURRENCY,

Defendant. /

No. C-08-01161 EDL

ORDER DETERMINING THAT

CHERUBIM HURDLE HAS FAILED TO

STATE A CLAIM TO DEFENDANT

$99,000 IN CURRENCY

This is a judicial forfeiture action involving the seizure of defendant, approximately $99,000

in United States currency. The currency was seized during the execution of a search warrant on

Michael Munoz’s residence. Both he and his mother, Gloria Munoz, filed claims during the

administrative forfeiture proceedings. The currency is now in the custody of the United States

Marshals Service. The United States has conducted extensive settlement discussions with the

Munoz’s attorney, and the parties are working on preparing a settlement document.

On March 27, 2008, an individual named Cherubim Hurdle filed a letter purporting to be a

“verified claim.” It appears that Hurdle discovered the pending action through an internet search.

Hurdle filed very similar letters in forfeiture actions in Texas, California, Michigan, and Illinois,

claiming to be a new business owner filing claims on behalf of future clients. These courts have

either reclassified Hurdle’s claim as a letter of interest and removed the designation as a claim (see,

e.g., Attachment C to United States’ Motion (May 1, 2008 Order Re-Designating Claim)), stricken

Hurdle’s claims (Attachment E to Motion (April 22, 2008 Order Striking Claim)), denied her motion

to file a claim on the grounds that the claim is frivolous (Attachment F to Motion (May 2, 2008

Order)), or found that Hurdle lacked standing to contest the forfeiture (Attachment G to Motion

Case 3:08-cv-01161-EDL Document 21 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 At other times in her opposition, Hurdle seems to indicate that if nobody else claims the

property, she is entitled to it because of some theft or crime committed in the 1990's. This does not give

her standing in this case, however.

2

(May 1, 2008 Order)). 

Here, Hurdle’s claim fails to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule of Civil Procedure

G(5)(a)(i), which provides that 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.” The Rule requires

that the claim 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. First, Hurdle does not identify the property claimed. There is no statement of

the amount of the defendant funds she claims. Second, she does not identify the claimant and state

the claimant’s interest in the property. It seems that she is claiming the interest in the property as a

“representative on behalf of [her] future clients,” noting only that the property “may belong to one of

my clients, or anyone else, a member of my family or a friend.” This letter is essentially merely an

offer letter to represent potential claimants in the forfeiture proceedings, as Hurdle admits in her

opposition brief. See Hurdle Opp. at 3 (describing reason for contacting the court as “finding people

entitled to their money and get it returned to them for a fee, noting “all I wanted to do was go into

business”).1 Third, the letter is not verified, as there is no statement that the claim is made under

penalty of perjury. 

For these reasons, the United States’ motion is granted. Hurdle has failed to state a claim

and therefore lacks standing to contest the forfeiture of defendant funds.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01161-EDL Document 21 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 2