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)

Download PDF
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?