United States of America v. Approximately $35,900.00 in U.S. Currency et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and (g)(2), this action be stayed due to the pending related criminal prosecution; All presently scheduled court dates be vacated; and, the parties are to promptly notify the Court upon resolution of the pending criminal prosecution. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/19/2012. (Timken, A)

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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 1:12-CV-00254-LJO-SKO ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION TO STAY ) PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER v. ) ) ) APPROXIMATELY $35,900.00 IN ) U.S. CURRENCY, ) ) APPROXIMATELY $5,500.00 IN U.S. ) CURRENCY, ) ) APPROXIMATELY $3,127.00 IN U.S. ) CURRENCY, and ) ) APPROXIMATELY $5,772.08 IN US. ) CURRENCY SEIZED FROM UNION ) BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER ) 1540018207, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) 23 The United States of America and Claimants Mark Bagdasarian and 24 Maureen Bagdasarian, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate 25 that a stay is necessary in the above-entitled action and request the Court enter an 26 order staying proceedings due to the on-going criminal prosecution United States v. 27 Bagdasarian et al, 1:11-CR-00352-LJO-SKO. 28 /// 1 The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and (g)(2). The 1 2 United States contends that the defendant assets were proceeds of, involved in, or 3 facilitated the violations alleged in the Superceding Criminal Indictment (See 1:11- 4 CR-00352-LJO-SKO Doc # 42). A stay is warranted because if discovery proceeds at this time in the civil in 5 6 rem case, Claimants would be entitled to depose, among others, the agents and 7 deputies involved with this investigation. Allowing depositions of the law 8 enforcement officers at this stage of the criminal investigation could adversely affect 9 the ability of the federal authorities to effectively pursue the related criminal 10 prosecution. 11 Likewise, a stay is warranted because Claimant Mark Bagdasarian is a 12 Defendant in the related criminal prosecution, has standing to assert a claim in the 13 civil in rem forfeiture proceeding, and continuation of the forfeiture proceeding will 14 burden the right of Claimant Mark Bagdasarian against self-incrimination in the 15 related criminal prosecution. 16 As such, the parties recognize that proceeding with the civil in rem action at 17 this time could have adverse effects on the underlying criminal prosecution and/or 18 upon the Claimants' ability to prove their claim to the property and to assert any 19 defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that this matter be stayed 20 21 pending resolution of the related criminal prosecution. 22 THEREFORE, the parties to this action stipulate and request as follows: 23 1. 24 pending related criminal prosecution; 25 2. All presently scheduled court dates be vacated; and, 26 3. The parties are to promptly notify the Court upon resolution of the pending 27 criminal prosecution. 28 /// Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and (g)(2), this action be stayed due to the 2 Respectfully submitted, 1 2 3 Dated: July 17 , 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney 4 5 /s/ Heather Mardel Jones HEATHER MARDEL JONES Assistant United States Attorney 6 7 8 9 Dated: July 17 , 2012 /s/ Nicholas Capozzi ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI NICHOLAS CAPOZZI Attorneys for Claimants Mark Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian 10 11 12 13 14 ORDER 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: ie14hj 18 July 19, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?