Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00427/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00427-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $7,800.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Thomas Godwin
Claimant
Siep San
Claimant
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $7,800.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00427-NONE-EPG

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE BE GRANTED

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

(ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff, the United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed this in rem civil forfeiture action 

against approximately $7,800.00 in U.S. currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), on grounds 

that the currency is a thing of value furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a 

controlled substance or listed chemical, or proceeds traceable to such an exchange, or was used or 

intended to be used to facilitate one or more violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq. (ECF No. 1.)

On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against two 

individuals with potential property interests in the currency—Siep San and Thomas Godwin—and

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 13
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

for a final judgment of forfeiture vesting in the United States all right, title, and interest in the 

defendant currency. (ECF No. 18.) There has been no response to the motion or the underlying 

complaint. For the following reasons, the Court recommends that the motion be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations 

The following factual recitation comes from Plaintiff’s uncontested Verified Complaint 

for Forfeiture in Rem (ECF No. 1):

On October 23, 2018, United States Postal Inspectors (“Inspectors”) conducting routine 

parcel profiling activities at the Fresno Processing and Distribution Center in Fresno, California, 

located a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) Priority Mail Express parcel, number 

EE155504805US, addressed to Siep San, 4598 E. Weldon Ave., Fresno, California 93703, with a 

return address of Thomas Godwin, 400 Bonner Lake Rd., Apt. C4, Gaffney, South Carolina 

29340 (hereafter “the subject parcel”).

The subject parcel’s Priority Mail Express label was handwritten and the contact phone 

numbers for the sender, Thomas Godwin (“Godwin”), and receiver, Siep San (“San”), were 

blank. Inspectors searched government databases and were unable to find a “Thomas Godwin” 

associated with 400 Bonner Lake Rd., Apt. C4, Gaffney, South Carolina. Inspectors knew from 

training and experience that narcotics traffickers often use Express, Priority, and First Class Mail 

service provided by the USPS to transport controlled substances and currency derived from the 

sale and distribution of controlled substances because Express, Priority and First Class Mail 

service provided by the USPS is protected against warrantless inspections. Inspectors also knew 

from training and experience that narcotics traffickers use priority Mail Express because they can 

track the parcels, dispatch times and locations, and have a guaranteed delivery in one to three 

business days. Additionally, inspectors knew from training and experience that narcotics 

traffickers use Priority Mail Express because they can track the parcels, dispatch times and 

locations, and have a guaranteed delivery in one to three business days. Additionally, Inspectors 

knew from training and experience that narcotics traffickers often hand write the labels attached 

to the mail parcel instead of utilizing a pre-printed label, as is customary with most legitimate 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 13
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

businesses.

Inspectors presented the subject parcel to a certified Fresno County Sheriff’s Office 

Canine Handler and her narcotic detecting canine, Kash.

Kash is trained to detect the odor of a number of narcotics, including marijuana, cocaine, 

methamphetamine, opium, and heroin. Kash has completed extensive training: Kash initially 

received detection training from Vigilant Canine Services International in Red Bluff, California. 

After completing that initial training, Kash and his handler completed over 250 hours of ongoing 

training, including monthly maintenance training. Kash and his handler are also certified annually 

by a California P.O.S.T. evaluator.

In this case, Kash was employed to determine whether the subject parcel demonstrated the 

presence of the odor of a controlled substance that he is certified to detect. Inspectors knew from 

training and experience that individuals who handle controlled substances often leave the odor of 

controlled substances on the box and other packaging materials they handle and that packaging 

materials are often stored in close proximity to the controlled substances. Narcotic canines are 

trained to alert on these odors.

Kash positively alerted to the subject parcel, indicating the odor of a controlled substance. 

Inspectors traveled to 4598 E. Weldon Ave., Fresno, CA 93703 (“4598 E. Weldon Ave”), to 

speak with San. No one was present at 4598 E. Weldon Ave. when the inspectors arrived, so the 

inspectors left a delivery notice with a phone number at which San could contact the inspectors. 

Inspectors subsequently received a telephone call from San, who agreed to meet with the 

inspectors at 4598 E. Weldon Ave. 

Inspectors returned to 4598 E. Weldon Ave. and learned that San was not present at the 

residence. Inspectors called San at the telephone number from which he previously called the 

inspectors. San stated that he would be at the residence within the next few minutes. 

Upon San’s arrival to 4598 E. Weldon Ave., the inspectors verified that they were 

speaking with San and asked San what was in the subject parcel. San replied, “just envelopes.” 

Inspectors asked San for his consent to open the parcel, which he subsequently gave. The 

parcel was empty except for two United States Postal Service (“USPS”) mailers, each of which 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 13
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

contained United States currency in various denominations, consisting primarily of $20.00 bills. 

The subject parcel did not contain any notes, receipts, or instructions. Inspectors knew from 

training and experience that individuals who traffic in controlled substances rarely include any 

type of instructions with the proceeds and that narcotics traffickers typically use low 

denomination currency, primarily in twenty-dollar denominations, to conduct their business. 

San subsequently stated that the subject parcel contained $8,000.00. San admitted that he 

had a checking account but stated that his friends mailed the cash to San to pay San back. San 

stated that he sent his friend cash through the mail several years ago but could not recall how 

much he had sent. San then claimed that he would have to check his checkbook. San subsequently 

stated he sent cash and would have to check his tally book. 

Inspectors asked San if they could call his friend to verify his statements. San stated that 

he did not have his phone with him. The subject currency totaled $7,800.00, composed of eight 

$100.00 bills, six $50.00 bills, three hundred and twelve $20.00 bills, thirty-eight $10.00 bills, 

and sixteen $5.00 bills. California Employment Development Department records revealed that 

between February 20, 2017, and February 20, 2019, San only had reportable employment during 

the fourth quarter of 2018. A USPS database search revealed that two previous USPS parcels had 

been shipped from Gaffney, South Carolina to 4598 E. Weldon Ave.: one by USPS Priority Mail 

Express in May 29, 2018, the second by USPS Priority Mail on August 30, 2018.

B. Procedural History 

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed this in rem civil forfeiture action against the subject

currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) as “moneys furnished or intended to be furnished by 

any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical, and proceeds traceable to 

such an exchange, and was used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more violations of 21 

U.S.C. § 841, et seq.” (ECF No. 1, p. 1.)

On April 12, 2019, the Clerk issued an arrest warrant in rem. (ECF No. 5.) The warrant 

was executed on May 10, 2019. (ECF No. 8). 

On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff mailed notice of this civil forfeiture action to Thomas Godwin 

at 400 Bonner Lake Rd., Apt. C4, Gaffney SC, 29340-2331 by first class and certified mail. (ECF 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 13
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

No. 15-1, p. 2.) The notice contained copies of the complaint, the order regarding the clerk’s 

issuance of arrest warrant in rem, the arrest warrant in rem, an affidavit of inspector Christopher 

Morgan that tracks the factual allegations in the complaint, an order setting a mandatory 

scheduling conference, a standing order, and court notices. (Id.) The certified package was 

returned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office unclaimed after three notices on April 20, 25, and May 5, 

2019. (Id.)

On June 17, 2019, the U.S. Marshals Service made efforts to personally serve the abovelisted documents on Mr. Godwin at the same address. (Id.) The U.S. Deputy Marshal spoke with 

the apartment complex management and confirmed that Thomas Godwin does not live at the 

complex. (Id.) On June 18, 2019, the U.S. Marshals Service made efforts to locate a current 

address for Thomas Godwin, but to no avail. (Id.)

As for Siep San, On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff mailed notice of this civil forfeiture action to 

Siep San at 4598 E. Weldon Ave., Fresno, California, 93703-3474 by first class and certified 

mail. (ECF No. 11-1, p. 2.) The certified package was returned unclaimed. (Id.) On May 30, 

2019, the U.S. Marshals Service personally served the above-listed documents on Lein San, the 

sister of Siep San, who resides at 4598 E. Weldon Ave., Fresno, California, 93703-3474. (Id.)

To date, neither Godwin nor San has filed an answer or claim in response to the in rem

civil forfeiture action.

Beginning on April 10, 2019, Plaintiff posted notice of the forfeiture on an official 

government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least thirty consecutive days. (ECF No. 6.) 

Having received no answer or response to the in rem civil forfeiture action, Plaintiff filed 

a request for entry of default as to Siep San and Thomas Godwin. (ECF No. 11.) The Clerk of 

Court issued an entry of default as to Sien Sap on July 12, 2019, and as to Thomas Godwin on 

September 9, 2019. (ECF Nos. 14 & 16.)

Plaintiff next filed a motion for a default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture on 

September 12, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) No opposition or response to the motion was filed. The Court 

held a hearing on the motion on November 1, 2019. 

///

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 13
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

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Civil Forfeiture 

Plaintiff brings this action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) which provides for the forfeiture of 

“[a]ll moneys...intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or 

listed chemical in violation of this subchapter...” Section 981(b)(2)(A), in turn, permits a seizure 

without a warrant if “a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the United States district court 

and the court has issued an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules of Certain 

Admiralty and Maritime Claims.” “Forfeiture is a harsh and oppressive procedure which is not 

favored by the courts.” United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th

Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has stated that it is “particularly wary of civil 

forfeiture statutes, for they impose ‘quasi-criminal’ penalties without affording property owners 

all the procedural protections afforded criminal defendants.” Id. at 1068. “[F]orfeitures should be 

enforced only when within both letter and spirit of the law,” United States v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 

1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted), and “forfeiture statutes are strictly construed 

against the government.” $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1068 (citation omitted). 

Accordingly, “strict adherence to procedural rules is paramount in civil forfeiture proceedings.” 

United States v. Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency, 2010 WL 2695637 

at *1 (D. Nev. July 2, 2010) (citations omitted). 

Procedurally, an in rem civil forfeiture must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions

(sometimes referred to herein as “Supplemental Rule(s)”). On September 1, 2006, Supplemental 

Rule G was adopted to govern civil forfeiture actions in rem. See U.S. v. $50,040 in U.S. 

Currency, 2007 WL 1176631 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2007). 

Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, the United States initiates forfeiture proceedings by 

filing a complaint. Supp. R. C(2); Supp. R. G(2). Under these Supplemental Rules, the complaint 

must be verified and describe the property at issue with reasonable particularity. Supplemental 

Rule G(2) also requires that the complaint include sufficient factual allegations to support a 

“reasonable belief” the United States will be able to meet its burden at trial. Supp. G(2)(f). 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 13
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

Then, if the property is located in the United States, the Plaintiff must publish notice of 

the forfeiture action in either a newspaper of general circulation in the district (Supp. R. C(4); 

Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(A)) or by posting a notice on the government forfeiture website for thirty 

consecutive days. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(C). This notice must include the time for filing a claim. 

Supp. R. G(4)(b)(ii)(B). 

“In addition to published notice, the United States must also provide direct notice of the 

forfeiture action to potential claimants under Supplemental Rule G. The notice must be sent by a 

means that may be reasonably calculated to reach the defendant.” Approximately $72,000 in U.S. 

Currency, 2009 WL 506866 at *6 (citing Supp. R. G(4)(b)(iii)(A)). More specifically, 

Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) provides that the notice must state “(A) the date when the notice is 

sent; (B) a deadline for filing a claim, at least 35 days after the notice is sent; (C) that an answer 

or motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 21 days after filing the claim; and (D) the 

name of the government attorney to be served with the claim and the answer.” Supp. R. 

G(4)(b)(ii). 

However, although the notice must be sent by a means that is reasonably calculated to 

reach the defendant, there is no requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the 

United States Constitution that a potential claimant actually receive notice of the forfeiture action. 

See U.S. v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that a potential claimant 

in a civil forfeiture proceeding is not entitled to actual notice of forfeiture proceeding). 

Finally, in addition to satisfying the supplemental rules discussed, to obtain a default 

judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the plaintiff must comply with Eastern District of 

California Local Rule 540, which provides as follows:

(a) Notice Required. A party seeking a default judgment in an action in rem shall show to 

the satisfaction of the Court that due notice of the action and arrest of the property has 

been given:

(1) By publication, see L.R. 530;

(2) By personal service on the person having custody of the property;

(3) If the property is in the hands of a law enforcement officer, by personal service on 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 13
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

8

the person having custody prior to its possession by law enforcement agency or 

officer; and 

(4) By personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to every other 

person who has not appeared in the action and is known to have an interest in the 

property; provided however, that failure to give actual notice to such other person 

may be excused upon a satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to give such notice 

without success.

B. Default Judgment 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to enter a final judgment in a 

case following a defendant’s default as follows:

(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for default 

judgment. A default judgment may be entered against an infant or incompetent 

person only if represented by a legal guardian, committee, conservator, or other 

like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom default judgment is 

sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that person or its 

representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 3 days 

before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals-preserving 

any federal statutory right to a jury trial-when, to enter or effectuate a judgment, it 

needs to: (A) conduct an account; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) 

establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other 

matter. 

Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability are taken 

as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-918 (9th Cir. 1987). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff has Satisfied the Procedural Requirements for an In Rem Civil 

Forfeiture 

1. Sufficiency of the Complaint 

Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, Plaintiff must file a verified complaint that states the 

grounds for jurisdiction and venue, describes the property being forfeited, identifies the statute 

under which the forfeiture action is brought, and includes sufficient factual detail to support a 

reasonable belief that Plaintiff will be able to meet its burden at trial. Supp. R. G(2). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint in this matter complies with those requirements: it states the grounds for subject matter 

jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and venue, describes the items seized and the circumstances 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 13
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

9

surrounding the seizure, and identifies the relevant statutes. Further, the uncontroverted facts 

provide a sufficient nexus between the subject currency and violations related to controlled 

substances or listed chemicals to support forfeiture. 

2. Notice By Publication 

Supplemental Rule G(4) sets forth the rules for publication of the notice of action in 

federal forfeiture proceedings. Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) provides that in lieu of 

newspaper publication, the Government may publish a notice by “posting a notice on an official 

internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.” 

Here, publication occurred on the official internet government forfeiture site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for 30 consecutive days beginning on April 10, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) A copy 

of the notice was attached to the declaration of publication, and it describes the property with 

reasonable particularity. (Id. at p. 3.) The notice clearly sets forth the time limits for filing a claim 

and an answer or motion. (Id.) The notice also provides the contact information for an attorney to 

be served with any claim, answer, or motion. (Id.) Thus, the Supplemental Rule’s notice content 

requirements have been satisfied. And because the notice was published for thirty consecutive 

days beginning April 10, 2019, on the forfeiture website, the frequency component of the notice 

requirement is also satisfied. 

3. Personal Notice

When the Government knows the identity of the property owner, the Due Process Clause 

of the Fifth Amendment requires “the Government to make a greater effort to give him notice 

than otherwise would be mandated.” Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1315. In such cases, the 

Government must attempt to provide actual notice by means reasonably calculated under all 

circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action. Dusenbery v. United 

States, 534 U.S. 16, 168 (2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(b). “Reasonable notice, 

however, requires only that the [G]overnment attempt to provide actual notice; it does not require 

that the [G]overnment demonstrate that it was successful in providing actual notice.” Mesa 

Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Real Property, 135 

F.3d at 1315 (“In view of the Government’s efforts to notify [claimant], we reject [claimant’s] 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 13
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

10

claim that due process requires that he received actual notice of the forfeiture proceedings.”). 

Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(A) mirrors this requirement, providing for notice to be 

“sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.” Additionally, this Court’s 

Local Rule 540 addresses notice to persons known to have an interest in property subject to 

forfeiture. 

Here, Plaintiff contends that it undertook reasonable measures to ensure that those with a 

potential interest in the subject currency—San and Godwin—received actual notice of this 

forfeiture proceeding. As for San, Plaintiff mailed notice of forfeiture to the 4598 E. Weldon Ave. 

address, which was San’s address according to the parcel containing the subject currency. The 

notice was sent by first class and certified mail. The certified package was returned unclaimed. 

Then, on May 30, 2019, the U.S. Marshal personally served Lein San, the sister of Siep San, with 

the notice of forfeiture at the 4598 E. Weldon Ave. address. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff attempted to provide San with actual notice by means reasonably calculated under all the 

circumstances to apprise him of the pendency of this action, thus satisfying the Due Process 

Clause, the Supplemental Rules, and Local Rule 540.

The same is true of Thomas Godwin: Plaintiff attempted to serve Godwin via first class 

and certified mail at 400 Bonner Lake Rd, Apt C4, Gaffney, SC, 29340-2331—the address 

associated with Godwin according to the parcel containing the subject currency. Plaintiff also 

attempted to personally serve Godwin at that same address. Finally, the U.S. Marshals Service 

made efforts to locate a current address for Godwin but found no matching records. The Court 

finds that Plaintiff attempted to provide actual notice to Godwin through means “reasonably 

calculated under all circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action.” 

U.S. v. Approximately 335 Counterfeit NFL Jerseys, No. 1:13-cv-341-AWI-GSA, 2014 WL 

2575446 at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2014) (citing Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 168). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied the requirement of providing for notice to be sent by 

means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant. 

4. The Time to File a Claim or Answer

Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, any person who asserts an interest in or a right in a 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 13
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

11

forfeiture action must file a claim with the Court within 35 days after service of the Government’s 

notice or 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture 

site. See Supp. R. G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & G(5)(a)(ii)(B). Failure to comply with the procedural 

requirements for opposing the forfeiture precludes a person from establishing standing as a party 

to the forfeiture action. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317. 

Here, more than 60 days have passed since the first date of publication, and more than 35 

days have passed since the date that the known potential claimants were provided with notice of 

the Plaintiff’s complaint for default judgment and civil forfeiture. No claim has been filed, and 

default has been properly entered against all known potential claimants. (ECF Nos. 14 & 16.)

5. Conclusion

Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements applicable to civil forfeiture in rem actions 

as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 983, the Supplemental Rules, and the Local Rules for the Eastern 

District of California. This favors the entry of default judgment and the issuance of a final 

judgment in forfeiture to vest in Plaintiff all right, title, and interest in the defendant property. 

B. The Eitel Factors Support Default Judgment 

Having determined that Plaintiff complied with the procedural prerequisites for a civil 

forfeiture in rem, the Court now turns to whether a default judgment is appropriate. Plaintiff seeks 

judgment against the interests of Siep San and Thomas Godwin and also requests that the Court 

enter a Final Judgment of Forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2323, forfeiting all right, title, and 

interest in the defendant currency to Plaintiff to be disposed of according to law. The 

Supplemental Rules do not provide a procedure to seek default judgment in an action in rem. 

However, Supplemental Rule A provides: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply to the 

foregoing proceedings except to the extent they are inconsistent with these Supplemental Rules.” 

When considering whether to enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, courts 

consider the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the 

plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in 

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was 

due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy of favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. 

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 13
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

12

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Eitel factors favor a default judgment here. First, Plaintiff would be prejudiced by the 

denial of its motion, spending additional time and effort litigating an action in which no claim has 

been made. Second, Plaintiff’s claims appear to have merit. Third, as discussed above, Plaintiff 

has adhered to the procedural requirements of a forfeiture action, including the filing of a 

sufficient complaint. Fourth, the sum of money in dispute here is not substantial enough to 

warrant the denial of Plaintiff’s motion. Fifth, there are no genuine disputes as to any material 

fact. Sixth, it does not appear that the failure of any claimant is due to excusable neglect. Finally, 

although merits-based decisions are always preferred, it is not practical, as here, where no claims 

have been filed. Accordingly, there is no impediment to the default judgment sought by Plaintiff 

and the Court will recommend that the motion be granted. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the interests of Siep San and Thomas 

Godwin be granted and a default judgment against Siep San and Thomas Godwin be 

entered. (ECF No. 18);

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of final judgment of forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 

881(a)(6) be granted;

3. The Court enter a Final Judgment of Forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), 

forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the Defendant Currency to the United States; 

and 

4. The Clerk of Court be instructed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the 

case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Written objections to these 

findings and recommendations may be filed within thirty days of issuance. Any such objections 

should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

\\\

\\\

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 13
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

13

Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00427-DAD-EPG Document 24 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 13