United States of America v. 50,000.00 In U.S. Currency

Filing 19

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (1) This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of thisaction. (2) Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law . All potentialclaimants to the defendant currency, other than Lou, are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to establish a basis for forfeiture. (3) The United States of Am erica shall have judgment as to $41,000.00 of the defendant currency and all interest earned on the entirety of the defendant currency since seizure, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The United State s is ordered to dispose of said funds in accordance with law. 4. $9,000.00 of the defendant currency, without interest, shall be returned to Lou by either check or wire transfer. (SEE ATTACHMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). Each of the Parties shall bear its own attorney's fees and costs in connection with this matter. The Parties waive all appeal rights with respect to this forfeiture matter. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 10/12/2017 3 C W 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. No. CV 17-4117-MWF (FFMx) 14 $50,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 15 CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE Defendant. 16 17 18 GUOJIAN LOU, Claimant. 19 20 This civil forfeiture action was commenced on June 6, 2017, against the defendant 21 $50,000.00 in U.S. Currency (the “defendant currency”), seized from Guojian Lou 22 (“Lou”) on or about November 28, 2016, during a traffic stop of a black 2013 Toyota 23 Sienna vehicle registered to Ximeng Wang in Alhambra, California. On August 18, 24 2017, Guojian Lou (“Lou”) filed a claim of interest and an answer to the complaint. No 25 other parties have appeared in this case and the time for filing claims of interest and 26 answers has expired. 27 28 1 Plaintiff United States of America and Lou have reached an agreement that is 2 dispositive of the action. The parties have requested that the Court enter this Consent 3 Judgment of Forfeiture. 4 WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 5 1. 6 7 This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential 8 claimants to the defendant currency, other than Lou, are deemed to have admitted the 9 allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to 10 11 establish a basis for forfeiture. 3. The United States of America shall have judgment as to $41,000.00 of the 12 defendant currency and all interest earned on the entirety of the defendant currency since 13 seizure, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The 14 United States is ordered to dispose of said funds in accordance with law. 15 4. $9,000.00 of the defendant currency, without interest, shall be returned to 16 Lou by either check or wire transfer. If the United States elects to make the payment by 17 check, the check shall be payable to “Law Office of Larry C. H. Kuo, APC Client Trust 18 Account,” and mailed to Larry C.H. Kuo, Esq., Law Office of Larry C. H. Kuo, APC, 19 961 North Azusa Avenue, Suite #5, Covina, California 91722. If the United States 20 elects to make the payment by wire transfer, the funds shall be wire transferred to the 21 Law Office of Larry C. H. Kuo, APC Client Trust Account. Lou and his attorney shall 22 provide any and all information, including personal identifiers, needed to process the 23 return of these funds according to federal law. 24 5. Lou has agreed to release the United States of America, its agencies, agents, 25 and officers, including employees, officers and agents of the Drug Enforcement 26 Administration, from any and all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to 27 this action or the underlying seizures, including, without limitation, any claim for 28 attorney’s fees, costs or interest which may be asserted on behalf of Lou, whether 2 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 or otherwise. If Lou has submitted a petition for remission 2 concerning the defendant currency, said petition is withdrawn and Lou has waived any 3 rights he may have to seek remission or mitigation of the forfeiture of the defendant 4 currency to be forfeited by this judgment. 5 6. This agreement is not admissible in any proceeding, civil or criminal, 6 except for purposes of enforcing or interpreting the terms of the agreement. The United 7 States agrees that it will not seek forfeiture of any of the funds being released to Lou 8 pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 9 10 7. Each of the Parties shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this matter. 11 8. The Parties waive all appeal rights with respect to this forfeiture matter. 12 9. The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the 13 defendant currency and institution of these proceedings. This judgment shall be 14 construed as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465. 15 16 17 Dated: October 12, 2017 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 Approved as to Form and Content: 2 3 Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2017 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attomey 4 LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON 5 Assistant United States Attomey Chief, Criminal Division 6 STEVEN R. WELK Chie( Asset Forfeiture Section 7 8 KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER Assistant United States Attorney 9 10 Attomeys for Plaintiff United States of America 11 12 13 14 /_V_h_b___, 2017 I Dated: _ _ 15 16 LAW OFFICE OF LARRY C.H. KUO, APC ~ LARRY C.H. KUO, ESQ. 17 Attorney for Claimant GUOJIAN LOU 18 19 20 l~_-_5___, 2017 Dated:: _ ...... G JiltJ u..o LfJ lA_ 21 GUOJlAN LOU 22 23 24 Claimant 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?