WO 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Defendant Michael Lacey’s (“Lacey”) Motion for Release of 

Funds Unrelated to Backpage and Request for Expedited Relief (Doc. 385) (the “Motion 

for Release of Funds”) and Lacey’s Motion to Strike the Government’s Untimely 

Opposition to His Motion for Release of Funds Unrelated to Backpage and Request for 

Expedited Relief (Doc. 415) (the “Motion to Strike”). The Motion for Release of Funds 

was fully briefed on December 11, 2018. (Docs. 412, 424) The Motion to Strike was fully 

briefed on December 21, 2018. (Docs. 423, 426) The Court’s ruling is as follows. 

I. Background

On March 28, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a ninety-three count indictment 

against several Defendants, including Lacey, alleging that the Defendants engaged in 

various crimes related to the operation of the website Backpage.com, including conspiracy, 

facilitating prostitution, and money laundering. (Doc. 3) The indictment also includes 

forfeiture allegations.1

 On April 26, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District 

 1

 On July 25, 2018, the grand jury returned a 100-count superseding indictment 

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 447 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

of California issued seizure warrants for certain of Lacey’s accounts with the Republic 

Bank of Arizona ending in x2485, x1897, and x3126. (Doc. 412 at 2; Doc. 385 at 1) 

On November 16, 2018, Lacey filed the Motion for Release of Funds seeking an 

order from the Court providing equitable relief from the seizure warrants issued by the 

Central District of California. (Doc. 385) On December 3, 2018, Lacey filed a Notice of 

Government’s Non-Opposition to the Motion for Release of Funds. (Doc. 403) On 

December 11, 2018, the Government filed its response to the Motion for Release of Funds 

(Doc. 412), and Lacey filed the Motion to Strike, citing the response as untimely. (Doc. 

415) 

II. Motion to Strike

Lacey filed the Motion to Strike seeking to strike the Government’s response to his 

Motion for Release of Funds because the response was filed more than fourteen days after 

service of the Motion for Release of Funds, as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 

7.2(c). LRCrim 12.1; (Doc. 415 at 5). In response, the Government argues that its response 

was timely because the Motion for Release of Funds is essentially a motion pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which would allow the Government 60 days to 

respond. (Doc. 423 at 2) 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within the Court’s discretion. 

Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1059 (D. Ariz. 

2018); LRCiv 7.2(i) (stating that the Court may, but is not required to, dispose of the motion 

summarily). A court may deny a motion to strike for untimely filing upon a finding of 

excusable neglect. Stewart v. Unknown Bezy, 473 F. App’x 752, 753 (9th Cir. 2012). To 

determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes excusable neglect, courts 

must apply a four-factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the 

opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) 

the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Ahanchian v. 

Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 

against the Defendants. (Doc. 230) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 447 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 4
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 

At this time, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to strike the Government’s 

response. First, the Court does not find that the Defendant suffered any prejudice from the 

untimely filing, and the Defendant did not identify any prejudice in his pleadings. Second, 

the delay had no impact on the Court’s timing in considering the Motion for Release of 

Funds or any potential impact on the proceedings in this case. The Court finds that the 

Government’s reason for the untimely filing was plausible, as the Motion for Release of 

Funds could easily be identified as a motion pursuant to FRCRP 41(g), despite the fact that 

the Court declines to address that issue at this time. Finally, the Court does not find any 

evidence that either party acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 

Government has demonstrated excusable neglect for its untimely filing, and the Motion to 

Strike is denied. The Court cautions the parties that this exercise of discretion will not 

excuse untimely filings in the future. 

III. Motion for Release of Funds

 Lacey also seeks an order from the Court releasing the funds held in three bank 

accounts identified as “Republic Bank accounts ending in 2485, 1897, and 3126.” (Doc. 

385 at 1) The seizure warrants freezing these accounts were issued by the Central District 

of California. (Doc. 424 at 6) At a hearing held on November 16, 2018, the Court declined 

to disrupt the seizure warrants issued by the Central District of California when similar 

challenges were brought by other Defendants (Docs. 360, 365, 376), and the Court found 

that the Defendants had a sufficient legal remedy for any challenges to the seizure warrants 

issued by the Central District of California in that district. (Doc. 401 at 56, 57–58, 59) 

Lacey argues that the Court’s prior Order is distinguishable from the present Motion 

for Release of Funds because he is not challenging the issuance, authorization or 

enforcement of the seizure warrants. (Doc. 424 at 6) Instead, Lacey argues that the Motion 

for Release of Funds is seeking equitable relief from the seizure warrants in the form of 

releasing the funds that are being restricted by the warrants. (Doc. 424 at 6) However, 

Lacey has not provided the Court with any precedent or persuasive argument for why he 

cannot seek the requested equitable relief in the Central District of California. Quite 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 447 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 4
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 

26 

27 

28 

strangely, Lacey admits that “an Application and Motion” challenging the seizure warrants 

at issue are presently being litigated before the Central District of California. (Doc. 424 at 

8–9, stating “[w]hile the parties continue to litigate the Application and Motion in the 

Central District of California, the government’s handling of that litigation demonstrates 

that this Motion should not face the same fate . . . .”) Therefore, as discussed in the Court’s 

previous Order, the Court finds that any legal or equitable relief from the warrants issued 

by the Central District of California is properly sought in that district.2

 The Court declines 

to exercise its jurisdiction to provide equitable relief from seizure warrants issued by 

another court where the Defendant is able to seek relief from the rendering court.3

 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Release of Funds Unrelated to 

Backpage and Request for Expedited Relief (Doc. 385) is denied; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Government’s 

Untimely Opposition to His Motion for Release of Funds Unrelated to Backpage and 

Request for Expedited Relief (Doc. 415) is denied. 

 Dated this 24th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

 2

It is well settled that a court should rarely interfere with the order of another court, as any 

such interference usurps the power of the rendering court. Although courts have held that justice 

may occasionally demand this type of interference, the identification of those rare situations is 

committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Ord v. United States, 8 F. App’x 852 (9th 

Cir. 2001); Treadaway v. Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis., 783 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1986). 3

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that considerations of comity and orderly 

administration of justice demand that the non-rendering court should decline jurisdiction of an 

action and remand parties for their relief to the rendering court. Delson Grp., Inc. v. GSM Ass’n, 570 F. App’x 690 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 447 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 4