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)
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?