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

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

 REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19905 73rd

AVENUE NE, KENMORE, WASHINGTON,

together with its Buildings, Improvements,

Appurtenances, Fixtures, Attachments and

Easements, 

Defendant.

No. C06-621MJP

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT OF

FORFEITURE

This comes before the Court upon the Government’s unopposed motion for forfeiture of real

property located at 19905 73rd Avenue NE, Kenmore, WA (“the Property”). Upon review of the

record (Dk. Nos. 1, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26) and the documents submitted by the

parties in interest, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion. Forfeiture is proper under 18

U.S.C. § 985 and Supplemental Maritime and Admiralty Claims Rule G, as the Government has

provided adequate notice of the forfeiture action and no claimant has filed a claim on the Property

within the time required by Rule G. 

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MJP Document 27 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER - 2

Background

On May 3, 2006, the Government brought this civil in rem forfeiture action against the

Property, alleging that the Property was used to grow marijuana and therefore is subject to forfeiture

under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The Government attempted to serve the forfeiture complaint on the

Property’s owner, Joseph Dibee, but was unable to do so because Dibee is a fugitive whose

whereabouts are unknown. The Government did successfully serve the complaint on Jeff Coles and

Maha Dibee Coles, who claimed Power of Attorney for Joseph Dibee.

Maha Dibee Coles filed a claim on the Property on July 9, 2006, but withdrew the claim on

March 29, 2007. Washington Mutual Bank – a secured creditor with an interest in the Property – 

also filed a claim, but withdrew this claim after reaching a settlement agreement with the Government. 

There have been no other claims on the Property.

On April 4, 2007, the Government wrote to the Court acknowledging that it had failed to

timely publish notice of the forfeiture action as required by Supplemental Maritime and Admiralty

Claims Rule G(4)(a)(i). The Government attempted to rectify this oversight by publishing notice in

the Daily Journal of Commerce on April 5, April 12, and April 19, 2007. Nonetheless, the Court

ordered the Government to show cause why its belated publication should be considered acceptable

under Rule G. The Government responded with a memorandum asserting that its belated publication

did not prejudice any potential claimants and thus should be excused.

On May 22, 2007, the Government filed the present motion for forfeiture.

Discussion

Under Supplemental Maritime and Admiralty Claims Rule G(4)(a)(i), the Government must

publish notice of a forfeiture action “within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the

court orders.” In this case, the Government did not publish notice of the action until April 2007,

nearly one year after filing the forfeiture complaint. This year-long delay is not a “reasonable time”

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MJP Document 27 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER - 3

under Rule G(4)(a)(i). However, the final clause of the Rule (“or at a time the court orders”) allows a

court to modify the reasonable time standard, without apparent limitation.

In a related case under Rule G’s predecessor, the Seventh Circuit held that courts should

liberally extend time deadlines under the Rule when a party misses those deadlines in good faith and

extending the deadlines would not prejudice opposing parties. See United States v. U.S. Currency, in

the amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d 555, 563 (7th Cir. 1988). Adopting these standards, this Court

concludes that the Government’s failure to publish notice within a reasonable time was a good faith

error. Moreover, the Government’s delay apparently did not prejudice opposing parties, as no

additional parties have filed claims on the Property after the Government’s belated publication. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that the Government’s publication was adequate under Rule

G(4)(a)(i), even though it was not filed within a reasonable time.

It appears that the Government has fulfilled all the other requirements for in rem civil

forfeiture. The Government duly filed a complaint for forfeiture, posted a notice of the complaint on

the Property, and served the Property owner via publication as required by 18 U.S.C. §985(c). The

complaint listed the required elements of Rule G(2), and the Government’s publication – while belated

– satisfied all the other publication criteria of Rule G(4).

Under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B), any additional claimant would have to file a claim on the Property

within 30 days after the Government’s final publication of notice. This 30-day deadline has passed,

and there is no indication that any party wishes to file a claim on the Property or is in the process of

doing so. Thus, this Court will grant the Government’s unopposed motion for judgment of forfeiture.

Conclusion

Despite the Government’s belated compliance with the publication requirement of Rule G, the

Court concludes that Government has adequately complied with the forfeiture requirements of that

Rule and the similar requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 985. No claimant has challenged the Government’s

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MJP Document 27 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER - 4

forfeiture action, and the time for doing so has passed. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the

Government’s unopposed motion for judgment of forfeiture. 

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. 

Dated: June 12, 2007.

 /s/ Marsha J. Pechman

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00621-MJP Document 27 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 4