Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leung Chinn
Claimant
Betty K. Chinn
Claimant
Byron Pickle
Claimant
Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Road, Hawkins Bar, California, APN: 008-760-12
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Real Property Located at 17 Coon

Creek Road, Hawkins Bar,

California, APN: 008-760-12, 

 Defendant,

________________________________

Leung Chinn, Betty K. Chinn,

Byron Pickle, 

 Claimants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-1937-GEB-DAD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM AND

ANSWER; DENYING CLAIMANT’S

MOTION*

The government moves in this in rem forfeiture action for an

order that strikes claimant Byron Pickle’s (“Pickle”) claim to the

defendant property (ECF No. 9) and Pickle’s answer to the government’s

forfeiture complaint (ECF No. 16). The motion is brought under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Rule”) G(8)(c)(i)(A).

The government argues that Pickle’s claim and answer should be stricken

because Pickle has failed to respond to the government’s Rule G(6)

Special Interrogatories. (Mot. 1:26-28.) 

The government supports its motion with the following

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 56 Filed 12/21/11 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

averments:

[T]he United States’ Rule G(6) special

interrogatories were mailed to the claimant on July

21, 2011. The claimant’s responses were due by

August 15, 2011. The deadline was later extended to

September 19, 2011. To date, the Government has not

received the claimant’s answers to the Supplemental

Rule G special interrogatories and the twenty-one

(‘21’) days in which a response is required has

lapsed. (Mot. 4:1-7.)

Pickle filed an untimely opposition to the government’s

motion. Pickle argues in his opposition that he “has in effect timely

responded to the government’s discovery requests” by moving for a stay

of this action before the government filed the motion sub judice. (Opp’n

4:16-17.) However, as stated in the Order filed in this action on

October 21, 2011: 

Rule G(8)(c)(ii)(A) prescribes that a motion to

strike a claim or answer of a claimant ‘must be

decided before any motion by the claimant to

dismiss the action.’ The advisory committee notes

to Rule G(8) prescribe that ‘a motion to dismiss

the action cannot be addressed until the court has

decided any government motion to strike the claim

or answer’ because ‘[a dismissal] motion . . . may

be made only by a claimant who establishes claim

standing.’ Further, 18 U.S.C. §981(g)(2)(B)

prescribes that a claimant may only seek a stay of

a civil forfeiture action if ‘the claimant has

standing to assert a claim in the civil forfeiture

proceeding.’ Since this authority reveals that the

government’s motion to strike must be decided

before Pickle’s [stay] motion[] [is] decided,

Pickle’s motions [were rescheduled for hearing

after the decision on the government’s motion to

strike]. 

In his opposition, Pickle also includes argument against responding to

discovery requests propounded by the government. However, the discovery

requests referenced in Pickle’s argument are not at issue in the

government’s motion to strike. Therefore that argument is disregarded.

The government’s special interrogatory discovery probes

Pickle’s connection to the defendant property. Rule G(6) prescribes

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 56 Filed 12/21/11 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

“[t]he government may serve special interrogatories limited to the

claimant’s identity and relationship to the defendant property without

the court’s leave at any time after the claim is filed but before

discovery is closed” and “[a]nswers or objections to these

interrogatories must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories

are served.” Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) prescribes “[a]t any time before trial,

the government may move to strike a claim or answer for failing to

comply with Rule G(5) or (6).” See also United States v. $27,970.00 in

U.S. Currency, No. 09-0139, 2010 WL 933762, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 16,

2010) (striking claim and answer for failure to comply with Rule G(6));

United States v. $85,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 10-0371, 2010 WL

5087910, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2010) (same). Since Pickle’s opposition

is an ineffective response to the special interrogatories at issue, the

government’s motion to strike Pickle’s claim and answer because of

Pickle’s failure to answer the subject special interrogatories is

GRANTED. 

Further, Pickle’s motion to stay the forfeiture proceedings

(ECF No. 42), currently scheduled for hearing on January 23, 2012 is

denied and the hearing is vacated because absent a claim to the

defendant property, Pickle no longer has standing to contest this

forfeiture action.

Dated: December 20, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 56 Filed 12/21/11 Page 3 of 3