On November 19, 2012, the Court granted [Docket No. 62] the United States’ 1

motion to extend a stay of these proceedings [Docket No. 60] pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 981(g)(1), which provides that “[u]pon the motion of the United States, the court shall

stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will

adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal investigation

or the prosecution of a related criminal case.” The United States filed its motion for

default judgment [Docket No. 56] on June 29, 2012, one month after the Court granted

its initial motion for a stay of 180 days [Docket No. 55]. As no one has filed a claim to

the Toyota Highlander, ruling on the United States’ motion for default judgment will not

“adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal

investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case.” See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, and

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER, VIN #JTEES42A182076495,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER AS TO 2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

and Request for Final Order of Forfeiture as to Defendant No. 2 [Docket No. 56] filed by

plaintiff United States of America. 

1

In order to obtain a judgment by default, a party must follow the two-step process

described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. First, he or she must seek an entry of

default from the Clerk of the Court under Rule 55(a). Second, after default has been

Case 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 63 Filed 02/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

entered by the Clerk, the party must seek default judgment according to the strictures of

Rule 55(b). See Williams v. Smithson, 1995 WL 365988, at *1 (10th Cir. June 20,

1995) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981). In this case, the Clerk

of the Court entered default against defendant 2008 Toyota Highlander, VIN

#JTEES42A182076495 (“the Toyota Highlander”), on May 9, 2012 [Docket No. 51]. 

Plaintiff now seeks entry of judgment by default pursuant to Rule 55(b).

The decision to enter default judgment is “‘committed to the district court’s sound

discretion . . . .’” Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 327 F.3d 1115, 1124 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting

Dennis Garberg & Assocs. v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir.

1997)). When exercising that discretion, the Court considers that “[s]trong policies

favor resolution of disputes on their merits.” Ruplinger v. Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732

(10th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “The default judgment must

normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted

because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Id. It serves to protect a plaintiff against

“interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights.” Id. at 733. 

Claimants Marie Dalton and George Magnani filed claims as to the real property

only [Docket Nos. 16 and 47] and have not sought relief from the entry of default

entered against the Toyota Highlander or responded to the motion for default judgment. 

Mr. Magnani’s Answer [Docket No. 49] addresses only the real property and does not

deny that “the 2008 Toyota Highlander is proceeds of a violation or violations of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957 and therefore is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A).” Docket No. 1 at 23, ¶ 77; Docket No. 49 at 10, ¶ 77. 

Case 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 63 Filed 02/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Upon the entry of default against defendants, the well-pleaded allegations in the

complaint are deemed admitted. See Olcott, 327 F.3d at 1125; see also 10A Charles

Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2688 (3d ed. 2010). “Even

after default, however, it remains for the court to consider whether the unchallenged

facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit

mere conclusions of law.” Id.

Plaintiff seeks to forfeit property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), which

provides that “[a]ny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted

transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property

traceable to such property” is “subject to forfeiture to the United States.” The Court has

reviewed the well-pleaded allegations in plaintiff’s complaint [Docket No. 1] and finds

that the facts alleged, accepted as true, support the forfeiture of the Toyota Highlander

to the United States. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Request for Final

Order of Forfeiture as to Defendant No. 2 [Docket No. 56] is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that default judgment and forfeiture of the 2008 Toyota Highlander,

VIN #JTEES42A182076495, including all right, title, and interest, is entered in favor of

plaintiff United States of America.

DATED February 5, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 63 Filed 02/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3