United States of America v. Approximately $7,624.85 in U.S. Currency et al
Filing
29
FINAL JUDGMENT of FORFEITURE, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/21/13. (Hellings, J)
5
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
HEATHER MARDEL JONES
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Courthouse
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 497-4000
Facsimile: (559) 497-4099
6
Attorneys for United States
1
2
3
4
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) 1:11-CV-01937-AWI-SAB
)
Plaintiff,
) FINAL JUDGMENT OF
) FORFEITURE
v.
)
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $7,624.85 IN U.S. )
CURRENCY,
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $6,099.37 IN U.S. )
CURRENCY SEIZED FROM
)
RIVER CITY BANK
)
ACCOUNT NUMBER 1810009790,
)
and
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $17,316.20 IN
)
U.S CURRENCY SEIZED FROM
)
WELLS FARGO BANK
)
ACCOUNT NUMBER 8123978010,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture filed June 14,
2013, the Court finds:
1.
This is a civil forfeiture action against Approximately $7,624.85 in
26
U.S. Currency, approximately $6,099.37 in U.S. Currency seized from River City
27
Bank account number 1810009790, and approximately $17,316.20 in U.S. Currency
28
seized from Wells Fargo Bank account number 8123978010 (hereafter collectively
1
Final Judgment of Forfeiture
1
2
“defendant funds”).
2.
A Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem was November 18, 2011,
3
alleging that said defendant funds are subject to forfeiture to the United States of
4
America pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
5
3.
On December 15, 2011, the Clerk issued a Warrant for Arrest for the
6
defendant funds. The warrant for the defendant funds was duly executed on
7
December 22, 2011.
8
4.
Beginning on December 20, 2011, for at least 30 consecutive days, the
9
United States published notice of this action on the official government forfeiture
10
site www.forfeiture.gov. A Declaration of Publication was filed with the Court on
11
September 10, 2012.
12
5.
In addition to public notice on the official internet government
13
forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov, actual notice or attempted notice was given to
14
the following individuals:
15
a.
Sara Herrin
16
b.
Daniel Herrin
17
c.
Jana Evans
18
d.
Nancy Smith
19
e.
Today’s Health Collective c/o Sara Herrin
20
6.
On February 6, 2012, Sara Herrin, Jana Evans, and Nancy Smith each
21
filed a Verified Claim to the defendant funds. On February 8, 2012, Sara Herrin,
22
Jana Evans, and Nancy Smith each filed an Answer to the Verified Complaint for
23
Forfeiture In Rem.
24
7.
Claimants Sara Herrin, Jana Evans, and Nancy Smith state that they
25
are the sole owners of the defendant funds and have authority to enter into this
26
agreement.
27
28
8.
No other parties have filed claims or answers in this matter, and the
time for which any person or entity may file a claim and answer has expired.
2
Final Judgment of Forfeiture
Based on the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is
1
2
hereby
3
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
4
1.
5
The Court adopts the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture
entered into by and between the parties to this action.
2.
6
That judgment is hereby entered against Claimants Sara Herrin, Jana
7
Evans, and Nancy Smith, and all other potential claimants who have not filed
8
claims in this action.
3.
9
Upon entry of a Final Judgment of Forfeiture herein $13,724.22 in
10
U.S. Currency of the defendant funds, together with any interest that may have
11
accrued on the full amount of the defendant funds, shall be forfeited to the United
12
States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), to be disposed of according to law.
4.
13
Within 60 days of entry of a Final Judgment of Forfeiture, $17,316.20
14
of the defendant funds, shall be returned to Claimants via their counsel of record,
15
Ms. Carrie Hagin, at 506 Broadway St., San Francisco, CA 94133.
5.
16
That plaintiff United States of America and its servants, agents, and
17
employees, and all other public entities, their servants, agents, and employees, are
18
released from any and all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the
19
seizure, arrest, or forfeiture of the defendant funds. This is a full and final release
20
applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of
21
said seizure, arrest, or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. The
22
parties waived the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.
6.
23
That pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and the allegations set
24
forth in the Complaint filed on or about November 18, 2011, the Court finds that
25
there was reasonable cause for the seizure and arrest of the defendant funds, and
26
for the commencement and prosecution of this forfeiture action, and a Certificate of
27
Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 shall be entered accordingly.
28
///
3
Final Judgment of Forfeiture
1
7.
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture entered
2
into between the parties, no party “substantially prevailed” within the meaning of
3
28 U.S.C. § 2465. All parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
4
5
8.
The Court shall maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final
Judgment of Forfeiture.
CERTIFICATE OF REASONABLE CAUSE
6
7
Based upon the allegations set forth in the Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem
8
filed November 18, 2011, and the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture filed
9
June 14, 2013, the Court enters this Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28
10
U.S.C. § 2465, that there was reasonable cause for the seizure or arrest of the
11
defendant funds, and for the commencement and prosecution of this forfeiture
12
action.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated:
0m8i78
June 21, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Final Judgment of Forfeiture
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?