United States of America v. 2003 BMW 745LI, License Number: 5EUE994, VIN: WBAGN63463DR11218 et al

Filing 56

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending the Grant of The Government's Motion for Default Judgment 54 . Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due within 15 days of service of this recommendation. signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/6/2011. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00461-AWI-SMS

Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THE GRANT OF
THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

2003 BMW 745LI,
VIN: WBAGN63463DR11218,
LICENSE: 5EUE994;
and
APPROXIMATELY $56,500.00 IN U. S.
CURRENCY

15
Defendants.
16

(Doc. 54)
/

17
In this civil forfeiture action, Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”) seeks (1)
18
default judgment against the interests of Kulwant Lasher, Tarlochan Lasher, and Jaswinder
19
Lasher in approximately $56,500.00 in United States currency and one 2003 BMW 745LI (the
20
“defendant property”) and (2) entry of a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all
21
right, title and interest in the defendant property. The Government’s motion has been referred to
22
the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72-302(c)(19) and is
23
considered in accordance with Local Rule A-540(d).
24
This Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is suitable for
25
decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Having considered all written
26
materials submitted, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant the Government’s
27
motion.
28
1

1

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

2

In 2003, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audited Lasher Brothers Trucking, Inc.

3

(“LBTI”), an entity owned and operated by Kulwant Lasher, Tarlochan Lasher, and Jaswinder

4

Lasher (collectively referred to as the “Lasher Brothers”). LBTI owed approximately $750,000 in

5

back payroll taxes. Although the IRS directed LBTI to make payments to become current with its

6

payroll tax obligations, LBTI never entered into a payment plan nor became current on its payroll

7

tax obligations. By May 2006, when IRS agents interviewed Tarlochan Lasher and Jaswinder

8

Lasher on suspicion of money laundering, LBTI owed $2.1 million in back payroll taxes,

9

penalties, and interest.

10

The United States Department of the Treasury, Office of the Treasury Inspector General

11

for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) received information that one of the Lasher Brothers had

12

offered $200,000 and a valuable rug in an attempt to bribe an IRS employee to abate LBTI’s tax

13

liabilities. In September 2006, TIGTA initiated an investigation. Thereafter, from October 12,

14

2006, through August 31, 2007, the Lasher Brothers continued to bribe IRS employees.

15

In a meeting regarding LBTI’s liabilities held on or about October 30, 2006, Kulwant

16

Lasher told an undercover revenue officer (“RO”), “You take care of me specially and we will

17

take care of you.” On November 30, 2006, when the RO asked Kulwant Lasher what he meant by

18

“being taken care of,” Kulwant Lasher explained that he could pay the taxes but that he wanted

19

“relief.” When the RO asked if Kulwant Lasher wanted to find out what the RO could do for him,

20

Kulwant Lasher replied affirmatively, suggesting a nice lunch followed by a trip to Hawaii.

21

On December 11, 2006, Kulwant Lasher requested that the RO abate all penalties and

22

interest due in exchange for a split of any taxes abated on a fifty-fifty basis. Kulwant Lasher

23

explained that if the RO could reduce LBTI’s tax liability from $1.2 million to $600,000, Kulwant

24

Lasher would pay the RO $300,000. Kulwant Lasher gave the RO $2000 cash on December 13,

25

2006; $1500 cash on February 7, 2007; and $1000 cash on February 21, 2007. Tarlochan Lasher

26

///

27
1

28

These facts were derived from Plaintiff’s amended complaint and from the memorandum of points and
authorities supporting this motion.

2

1

also attended the February 21, 2007 meeting, at which he indicated that he agreed with his brother

2

Kulwant Lasher’s proposal.

3

On or about April 18, 2007, the Lasher Brothers on behalf of LBTI signed eighteen

4

abatement documents covering the first quarter of the 2003 tax year through the second quarter of

5

the 2007 tax year. Kulwant Lasher gave the RO a package containing $8000, and Tarlochan

6

Lasher gave the RO $25,000. On May 7, 2007, Kulwant Lasher gave the RO $17,000 and an IRS

7

delinquency notice that he had received in the mail.

8

On or about August 28, 2007, the RO complained that although LBTI’s tax liability was

9

almost $2.5 million, the Lasher Brothers had not completed their part of the bargain since they

10

had paid the RO only $54,500. Kulwant Lasher then gave the RO $2000, explaining that it was

11

for the RO’s bank account, not for the IRS. On August 29, 2007, Kulwant Lasher offered the RO

12

the defendant vehicle and the deed to his residence at 643 Sandhill Crane Drive, Los Banos,

13

California. On or about August 31, 2007, Kulwant Lasher gave the RO a signed quitclaim deed to

14

his residence, an agreement to sell the defendant vehicle, and the key to the defendant vehicle.

15

On October 18, 2007, a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of California indicted Kulwant

16

Lasher, Tarlochan Lasher, and Jaswinder Lasher for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy);18

17

U.S.C §§ 201(b)(1)(C) and 2 (bribery of a public official, and aiding and abetting).

18

On October 31, November 7 and 14, 2007, the IRS published notice of nonjudicial

19

forfeiture of the defendant property in the Merced Sun-Star, Merced, California.

20

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is a civil action in rem to forfeit to the United States of America (1) a 2003 BMW

21
22

745LI automobile and (2) approximately $56,500 in U.S. currency (“defendant property”).

23

Because the defendant property was used or intended to be used to further the Lasher Brothers’

24

scheme to bribe a United States official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201, it is subject to forfeiture

25

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). On April 1, 2008, the Government filed its complaint for

26

forfeiture in rem.

27

///

28

///
3

1

On April 2, 2008, based on the allegations of the amended complaint, the Clerk of the

2

Court issued a Warrant for Arrest of Articles In Rem for the Defendant Property. The warrant

3

was returned executed on June 9, 2008.

4

On April 2, 2008, this Court authorized publication of the forfeiture action in The

5

Business Journal, Fresno, California. According to the Government’s Declaration of Publication,

6

filed June 9, 2008, a Notice of Arrest and Seizure was published on May 16, 2008.

7

On April 4, 2008, copies of the Complaint, Application and Order for Publication,

8

Warrant for Arrest, Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, Notice of Availability of a

9

Magistrate Judge, Notice of Availability of Voluntary Dispute Resolution , and notice of forfeiture

10

letter dated April 4, 2008, were served by first-class mail on Anthony P. Capozzi, defense counsel

11

for Kulwant Lasher; Carl M. Faller, defense counsel for Tarlochan Lasher; and Roger Nuttall,

12

defense counsel for Jaswinder Lasher. On May 8, 2008, Jaswinder Lasher filed a verified claim to

13

the $56,5000 in currency. On May 9, 2008, Kulwant Lasher filed a claim to the defendant

14

property. Kulwant Lasher, Tarlochan Lasher, and Jaswinder Lasher, were each personally served

15

on June 2, 2008.

16
17
18

On June 25, 2008, the Court stayed this action pending conclusion of the federal criminal
action against Kulwant Lasher and Jaswinder Lasher.
As part of the Government’s Requests for Entry of Default, the United States Attorney

19

declared under penalty of perjury that on information and belief, none of the Lasher Brothers was

20

in the military service or was an infant or incapacitated person.

21

In the corresponding criminal action, Kulwant Lasher and Tarlochan Lasher both pleaded

22

guilty and were convicted of conspiracy to bribe a public official. As part of their plea

23

agreements, both Kulwant Lasher and Tarlochan Lasher admitted giving the defendant property to

24

the RO pursuant to the bribery scheme. The indictment against Jaswinder Lasher was dismissed

25

pursuant to Kulwant Lasher’s and Tarlochan Lasher’s plea agreements.

26

The Court lifted the stay on May 6, 2011. The Clerk entered default against Tarlochan

27

Lasher on May 9, 2011. On June 16, 2011, Kulwant Lasher voluntarily withdrew his answer and

28

claim in this case. On June 30, 2011, Jaswinder Lasher voluntarily withdrew his answer and
4

1

claim. On July 22, 2011, the Clerk entered default against Kulwant Lasher and Jaswinder Lasher.

2

On July 26, 2011, the Government filed its Motion for Default Judgment against the Lasher

3

Brothers.

4

III.

Discussion

5

A.

6

The Government contends that the allegations set forth in the verified complaint for

7

Forfeiture In Rem and the cited facts provide ample grounds for forfeiture of the defendant

8

property. A complaint’s sufficiency is one factor for consideration in deciding whether to grant

9

default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Property is subject to

10

forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) if was used or intended to be used in furtherance

11

of a scheme to bribe a federal official.

12

Sufficiency of the Complaint

The complaint meets the requirements of Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty

13

or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it is

14

verified; states the grounds for subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and venue;

15

describes the property seized and the circumstance of its seizure; and identifies the relevant

16

statutes. In the absence of assertion of interests in the defendant property, this Court is not in a

17

position to question the facts supporting its forfeiture. As alleged, the facts set forth a

18

sufficient connection between the defendant property and illegal activity to support a forfeiture.

19

II.

Notice Requirements

20

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from taking

21

property without due process of law. Individuals whose property interests are at stake are entitled

22

to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The requisite notice was provided to the Lasher

23

Brothers.

24

A.

25

Supplemental Rule G(4) provides that the Government mus publish notice within a

Notice by Publication

26

reasonable time after the complaint has been filed. Local Admiralty and In Rem rules further

27

provide that the Court shall designate by order the appropriate vehicle for publication. Local

28

Rules A-530 and 83-171. On April 2, 2008, this Court authorized publication of the forfeiture
5

1

action in The Business Journal, Fresno, California. According to the Government’s Declaration

2

of Publication, filed June 9, 2008, a Notice of Arrest and Seizure was published on May 16, 2008.

3

Accordingly, the Government satisfied the requirements for notice to the Lasher Brothers by

4

publication.

5

B.

6

When the Government knows the identity of the property owner, due process requires “the

Personal Notice

7

Government to make a greater effort to give him notice than otherwise would be mandated by

8

publication.” United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). In such cases,

9

the Government must attempt to provide actual notice by means reasonably calculated under all

10

circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action. Dusenbery v. United

11

States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002) (quotations omitted). See also Mullane v. Central Hanover

12

Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950) (requiring such notice “as one desirous of actually

13

informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it”). “Reasonable notice, however,

14

requires only that the government attempt to provide actual notice; it does not require that the

15

government demonstrate that it was successful in providing actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v.

16

United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005).

17

Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) mirrors this requirement, providing for notice to be sent by

18

means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant. Local Rule A-540 also requires that

19

a party seeking default judgment in an action in rem demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that

20

due notice of the arrest of the property has been given both by publication and by personal service

21

of the person having custody of the property, or if the property is in the hands of a law

22

enforcement officer, by personal service on the person who had custody of the property before its

23

possession by a law enforcement agency or officer. Notice must also be provided by personal

24

service or certified mail, return receipt requested, on every other person who has appeared in the

25

action and is known to have an interest in the property, provided that failure to give actual notice

26

to such other person may be excused upon a satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to provide

27

notice without success. L.R. A-540(a). Notwithstanding the Supplemental Rules and L.R. A-

28

540(a), the Government provides sufficient notice when the notice complies with the requirements
6

1

of F.R.Civ.P. 4. See F.R.Civ.P. 4(n)(1) (providing that when a federal statute authorizes

2

forfeiture, “[n]otice to claimants of the property shall then be sent in the manner provided by

3

statute or by service of a summons under this rule”).

4

Here, the Government personally served each of the Lasher Brothers with the complaint,

5

arrest warrant, publication order, and other related documents on June 2, 2008. In addition, all

6

requisite documents were also served by mail on each Lasher Brother’s defense attorney.

7

Accordingly, each of the three Lasher Brothers received actual notice.

8

C.

9

Supplemental Rule G(5) requires any person who asserts an interest in or right against the

10

defendant property to file a claim with the Court within 35 days after service of the Government’s

11

complaint or 30 days after the final publication of notice. Supplemental R. G(4)(b) & (5). Failure

12

to comply with the procedural requirements for opposing the forfeiture precludes a person from

13

establishing standing as a party to the forfeiture action. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317. As

14

detailed above, although Kulwant Lasher and Jaswinder Lasher each originally filed answers and

15

claims in this action, each withdrew his answer and claim as part of his plea bargain in the

16

corresponding criminal action. Accordingly, the Clerk appropriately entered default against

17

Kulwant Lasher and Jaswinder Lasher.

Failure to File Claim or Answer

18

D.

19

The Government seeks judgment against the interests of Kulwant Lasher, Tarlochan

Default Judgment

20

Lasher, and Jaswinder Lasher, and final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right,

21

title and interest in the defendant property. The Supplemental Rules do not set forth a procedure

22

to seek default judgment in rem. Supplemental Rule A provides, “The Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure also apply to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent that they are inconsistent

24

with these Supplemental Rules.”

25

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default entry is a prerequisite to default

26

judgment. “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to

27

plead or otherwise defend, and the failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter

28

///
7

1

the party’s default.” F.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Generally, the default entered by the clerk establishes a

2

defendant’s liability.

3

Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require as a
prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment. The general rule of law is that upon
default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount
of damages, will be taken as true.

4
5
6

TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

7

As noted above, the Government properly obtained entries of default against the interests

8

of each of the three Lasher Brothers. There is no impediment to default judgment sought by the

9

Government against them. The Government properly seeks judgment against the interests of the

10

entire world, that is, a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title, and

11

interest in the defendant property. “A judgment in rem affect the interests of all persons in

12

designated property . . . . [T]he plaintiff is seeking to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject

13

property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons.”

14

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n. 12 (1958). Because of the Lasher Brothers’ defaults, the

15

Government is entitled to a final forfeiture judgment.

16

RECOMMENDATIONS

17

In light of the reasons discussed above, this Court recommends that

18

1.

The District Court grant Plaintiff United States of America default

19

judgment against the interests of Kulwant Lasher, Tarlochan Lasher, and

20

Jaswinder Lasher;

21

2.

The Clerk of Court enter final forfeiture judgment to vest in Plaintiff

22

United States of America all right, title and interest in the defendant

23

property; and

24

3.

The District Court order Plaintiff United States of America, within ten (10)

25

days of service of an order adopting these findings and recommendations,

26

to submit a proposed default and final forfeiture judgment consistent with

27

the findings and recommendations and the order adopting them.

28

///
8

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-304. Within fifteen (15) court days of

3

service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and

4

recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be

5

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge

6

will review these findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

7

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specific time may waive the right

8

to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:

September 6, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9