United States of America v. Approximately $35,900.00 in U.S. Currency et al
Filing
28
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture be Granted, 26 . Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation; signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/24/2017. (Timken, A)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00254-LJO-SKO
9
Plaintiff,
10
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT
OF FORFEITURE BE
GRANTED
v.
11
12
13
APPROXIMATELY $35,900.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY, et al.
Defendants.
14
(Doc. 26)
15
16
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS
_________________________________/
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION
19
In this in rem civil forfeiture action, Plaintiff United States of America (the
20
“Government” or “Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte Application for Default Judgment and Final
21
Judgment of Forfeiture (the “Application”) seeking entry of a default judgment against the
22
interests of Mark Bagdasarian, Maureen Bagdasarian, and Ryan Bagdasarian and a final
23
judgment of forfeiture against all known and unknown potential claimants to the Approximately
24
$35,900.00 in U.S. Currency, Approximately $5,500.00 in U.S. Currency, Approximately
25
$3,125.00 in U.S. Currency, and Approximately $5,772.08 in U.S. Currency seized from Union
26
Bank account number 1540018207 (collectively the “Defendant Funds”). No opposition to the
27
Application has been filed, and the time to file an opposition has expired. The Court reviewed
28
1
1
the motion and supporting document and found the matter suitable for decision without
2
argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g); thus the October 25, 2017, hearing was vacated. (Doc.
3
27.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Government’s
4
Application be GRANTED.
5
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
6
On February 22, 2012, the Government filed a verified complaint alleging that, in 2011,
7
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department initiated an
8
investigation into the illegal sales of marijuana at marijuana retail storefronts operating in
9
Fresno County, California.
(Doc. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 7.)
The investigation revealed Mark
10
Bagdasarian was the primary operator and Executive President of Buds 4 Life, a marijuana retail
11
business. (Id.) The investigation determined that Mark Bagdasarian, Ryan Bagdasarian, and
12
others involved with Buds 4 Life, were operating two “cash-only” marijuana retail storefronts:
13
one in Tarpey Village located at 3705 N. Clovis Avenue (hereafter “Buds 4 Life”), and one at
14
16906 Friant Road in Friant, California (hereafter “Buds 4 Life North”). Id.
15
In an interview with Mark Bagdasarian by law enforcement officers, Mr. Bagdasarian
16
admitted that he was the Executive President of Buds 4 Life, a marijuana retail store, and that he
17
established Buds 4 Life with his son, Ryan Bagdasarian. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Mark Bagdasarian
18
identified others involved with his business operations and admitted to the location of his indoor
19
warehouse marijuana cultivation operation. (Id.) Mark Bagdasarian admitted that at the end of
20
each day a portion of the marijuana sale proceeds were deposited in a safe located at 5777 E.
21
Shields Avenue but then were taken to his personal residence where he and his wife, Maureen
22
Bagdasarian re-counted the money. (Id.) Mark Bagdasarian estimated that between February
23
and May 2011, he took home an average of $30,000 to $50,000 per day of marijuana sale
24
proceeds, and was fully aware that his business violated federal law. (Id.)
25
26
1
27
The facts set forth in this factual background section are taken from Plaintiff’s verified complaint filed February
22, 2012. (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”))
28
2
1
On June 1, 2011, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service,
2
Fresno County Sheriff’s Department and other state, local, and federal law enforcement
3
agencies executed state search warrants at seven different locations associated with Buds 4 Life,
4
including: 3705 N. Clovis Avenue, 2675 Shirley, 6129 N. Mitre, 5771 and 5777 E. Shields
5
Avenue. (Compl. ¶ 9.) These searches resulted in the total seizure of approximately 99
6
kilograms of processed marijuana, 3,669 live marijuana plants, 309 grams of concentrated
7
cannabis, hundreds of units of edibles/drinks containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)2, over
8
$500,000 in U.S. currency, a Harley-Davison motorcycle, and a 2008 Toyota Scion automobile.
9
(Id.)
10
On October 4, 2011, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department conducted a traffic stop on
11
Mark Bagdasarian. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Subsequent to the vehicle stop, a detective with the Fresno
12
County Sheriff’s Department utilized his narcotic-detecting canine “Tag” to conduct a sniff
13
search on the vehicle, which resulted in a positive alert for the presence of narcotics near the
14
rear exterior hatch, the interior center console, and front passenger floorboard. (Id.) During a
15
physical search of the vehicle, law enforcement located several small containers containing
16
174.3 gross grams of marijuana, and approximately $35,900.00 in U.S. currency. Id. “Tag”
17
also gave a positive alert to the presence of the odor of narcotics on the approximately
18
$35,900.00. (Id.) Law enforcement took Mark Bagdasarian into custody. (Id.)
19
Following his arrest, law enforcement executed a federal search warrant at Mark
20
Bagdasarian’s residence in Clovis, California. (Compl. ¶ 12.)
21
enforcement located miscellaneous documents, hash oil, Buds 4 Life documents, and three small
22
plastic bags containing marijuana, approximately $5,500.00 in U.S. currency, 4 plastic
23
containers of hashish, three large plastic bags containing processed marijuana, twelve small
24
plastic bags containing processed marijuana, and approximately 56 small plastic containers
25
containing hash oil. (Id.) In the attached garage, law enforcement officers located a makeshift
26
27
2
Tetrahydrocannabinol is the physiologically active component in cannabis.
28
3
Within the residence, law
1
room, which contained marijuana leaves and stems, two large plastic bags with processed
2
marijuana, THC analysis lab reports and marijuana edibles such as peanut butter cups, cookies,
3
drinks, and sauces. (Id. ¶ 13.)
4
On October 4, 2011, law enforcement members of the Drug Enforcement
5
Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
6
executed a federal search warrant at Buds 4 Life North located at 16906 N. Friant Road, Friant,
7
California. (Compl. ¶ 14.) During the search of Buds 4 Life North, law enforcement officers
8
located and seized approximately 25.25 pounds of processed marijuana, approximately 139
9
bottles of THC beverages, approximately 222.64 pounds of THC edibles, approximately 1.93
10
pounds of THC Joint/Muscle Rub, approximately 0.53 pounds of marijuana hash, approximately
11
37.17 pounds of THC ice cream, approximately 3.17 pounds of THC oil, approximately 2.75
12
pounds of marijuana plants, multiple loaded firearms, miscellaneous Buds 4 Life documents,
13
and approximately $3,125.00 in U.S. currency. (Id. ¶ 15.) The narcotics-detecting canine “Tag”
14
gave a positive alert to the presence of the odor of narcotics on the seized currency. (Id.) Law
15
enforcement arrested Ryan Bagdasarian at his residence in Clovis, California in connection with
16
this case. (Id. ¶ 16.)
17
On or about October 6, 2011, approximately $5,772.08 was seized from Union Bank
18
account number 1540018207, held in the name of Mark Bagdasarian pursuant to a seizure
19
warrant executed on June 1, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Other than a record associated with Buds 4
20
Life, the California Employment Development Department has no record of employment or
21
wages for the fourth quarter of 2010 through the reporting period in 2011 for either Mark
22
Bagdasarian or Ryan Bagdasarian. (Id. ¶ 23.)
23
III.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
24
On October 13, 2011, a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of California indicted Mark
25
Bagdasarian and Ryan Bagdasarian, for narcotics violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846,
26
and other related charges. (Compl. ¶ 24.) On February 22, 2012, the Government filed a civil
27
action for forfeiture in rem pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) of the Defendant Funds. (See
28
4
1
Doc. 1). Based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Clerk of the Court issued a
2
Warrant for Arrest of Articles In Rem for the Defendant Funds. (Doc. 6.) The United States
3
Marshals Service executed the Warrant for Arrest on the Defendant Funds on March 7, 2012.
4
(See Doc. 8.)
5
The Government published public notice of the action and the arrest of the Defendant
6
Funds via the official internet government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov for at least 30
7
consecutive days. (See Doc. 15.) Publication in a manner consistent with Local Rule 500(d) via
8
Supplemental Rule G(4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and
9
Asset Forfeiture Actions (hereafter “Supplemental Rules”) was made beginning May 2, 2012,
10
and proof of such publication was filed with the Court on June 6, 2012. (See id.) The United
11
States also caused notice to be delivered to various individuals with a suspected potential
12
interest in the Defendant Funds in a manner reasonably likely to reach them, as follows: On
13
March 6, 2012, the United States served Ryan Bagdasarian with notice of this action. (See Doc.
14
12-1, Declaration of Autumn Magee in Support of Request to Clerk for Entry of Default against
15
Ryan Bagdasarian (“Magee Decl.”) ¶ 5.) On March 6, 2012, the United States served Mark
16
Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian with notice of this action. (See Doc. 24-1, Declaration
17
of Elisa Rodriguez in Support of Request to Clerk for Entry of Default against Mark
18
Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian (“Rodriguez Decl.”) ¶¶ 5–6.) On March 6, 2012, the
19
United States served Anthony P. Capozzi, Esq., defense counsel for Mark Bagdasarian and
20
Ryan Bagdasarian in the related criminal case, United States v. Mark Bagdasarian, et al., 1:11-
21
CR-00352-LJO, with notice of this action. (Id. ¶ 7.)
22
On April 10, 2012, Mark Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian filed their claim to the
23
Defendant Funds. (Doc. 9.) Mark Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian filed their answer to
24
the complaint for forfeiture on May 2, 2012. (Doc. 11.) On May 11, 2012, pursuant to Rule
25
55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court entered default against Ryan
26
Bagdasarian. (Doc. 13.)
27
28
5
1
On June 5, 2017, the criminal case of United States v. Mark Bagdasarian, et al., 1:11-
2
CR-00352-LJO, resolved with Ryan Bagdasarian’s guilty plea to Possession of Marijuana with
3
the Intent to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D), and Mark
4
Bagdasarian’s guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) – Money Laundering.
5
(See Doc. 26 at 4:21–24.)
6
That same day, on June 5, 2017, Maureen Bagdasarian filed her withdrawal of claim and
7
answer. (Doc. 21.) Mark Bagdasarian filed his withdrawal of claim and answer on June 7,
8
2017. (Doc. 22.) On September 21, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered default against Mark
9
Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian.
(Doc. 25.)
The Government filed the present
10
Application for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture on September 25, 2017. (Doc.
11
26.) No opposition has been filed to the Government’s Application.
12
IV.
DISCUSSION
13
1.
14
The Government seeks judgment against the interests of Mark Bagdasarian, Maureen
15
Bagdasarian, and Ryan Bagdasarian, and also seeks final judgment of forfeiture against all other
16
unknown potential claimants. The Supplemental Rules themselves do not provide a procedure
17
to seek default judgment in an action in rem. However, Supplemental Rule A provides: “The
18
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent
19
that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental Rules.”
20
21
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that a court has discretion to enter
default judgment against a party and provides as follows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default
judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent
person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like
fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is
sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its
representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 7 days
before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals—
preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial—when, to enter or effectuate
28
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of
damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate
any other matter.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In considering whether to enter default judgment, courts consider the
following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s
substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the compliant; (4) the sum of money at stake in the
action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due
to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy of favoring decision on the merits. Eitel v.
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of
the complaint relating to liability are taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826
F.2d 915, 917–918 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S.
Currency, No. 1:13–cv–1542 GSA, 2015 WL 5097707, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015).
Accord Dundee Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe & Concrete Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323
(7th Cir. 1983).
In the context of an in rem forfeiture action, a court considering default judgment should
also consider the procedural requirements set forth by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of
2000, 18 U.S.C. § 983; the Supplemental Rules; and the Court’s Local Rules for Admiralty and
in rem actions.
See United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 1994)
(explaining that, because civil forfeiture is a “harsh and oppressive procedure which is not
favored by the courts,” the Government carries the burden of demonstrating its strict adherence
to procedural rules), superseded by statute on other grounds.
2.
Procedural Requirements
22
a.
23
24
25
26
Sufficiency of the Complaint
Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, the Government must file a verified complaint that
states the grounds for jurisdiction and venue, describes the property being forfeited, identifies
the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought, and includes sufficient factual detail to
support a reasonable belief that the Government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.
27
28
7
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(2). With regard to the sufficiency of the factual detail of the verified
2
complaint, the Government is not required to show a direct relationship between the proceeds of
3
a drug crime and a specific drug transaction. Rather, circumstantial evidence may support the
4
forfeiture of the proceeds of a drug crime. See United States v. $30,670.00, 403 F.3d 448, 467–
5
70 (7th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that an airline
6
passenger’s cash hoard was connected to drug trafficking and subject to forfeiture); United
7
States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (applying totality of the
8
circumstances to determine that cash carried by airline passenger was the proceeds of, or
9
traceable to, an illegal drug transaction); Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 2015 WL
10
5097707, at *6.
11
Here, the Government contends that the verified complaint establishes circumstantial
12
evidence that the Defendant Funds were furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a
13
controlled substance or listed chemical and is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
14
881(a)(6). (See Doc. 26 at 6:11–16.) Pursuant to Section 881, the following is subject to
15
forfeiture to the United States:
16
17
18
19
20
(6)
All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value
furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a
controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all
proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable
instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any
violation of this subchapter.
21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
21
The allegations of the Government’s verified complaint provide sufficient circumstantial
22
evidence to reasonably believe that the Defendant Funds constitute “moneys” furnished or
23
intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or was used or intended to be
24
used to facilitate one or more violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq. The Defendant Funds were
25
seized from Mark Bagdasarian’s residence and accounts directly associated with two dispensary
26
locations called Buds 4 Life and Buds 4 Life North, run and operated by Mark Bagdasarian and
27
28
8
1
Ryan Bagdasarian. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15, 22.) The Defendant Funds were derived from the sales
2
of marijuana at the dispensary locations. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 20.) Further, a drug-detecting canine alerted
3
to the presence of the odor of narcotics on the Defendant Funds. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 15.)
4
“In the absence of assertion of interests in the Defendant [Funds], the Court will not
5
question the facts supporting its forfeiture . . . .” Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency,
6
2015 WL 5097707, at *6. The Court therefore finds that the facts, as alleged, provide a
7
sufficient connection between the Defendant Funds and illegal drug activity to support a
8
forfeiture.
9
b.
Notice by Publication
10
Subject to certain exceptions not present here, the Supplemental Rules require the
11
Government to publish notice of the forfeiture in a manner that is reasonably calculated to notify
12
potential claimants of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv). The content of the notice
13
must describe the property with reasonable particularity, state the times to file a claim and to
14
answer the complaint, and identify the name of the Government attorney to be served with the
15
claim and answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(ii)(A)–(C). This notice requirement may be
16
satisfied by posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30
17
consecutive days. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(C).
18
Here, publication occurred on the official internet government forfeiture site
19
(www.forfeiture.gov) for 30 consecutive days. (Doc. 15.) The Government filed a Declaration
20
of Publication stating that notice had been created and published on the forfeiture website for 30
21
days, beginning on May 2, 2012. (Id.) A copy of the notice was attached to the Declaration of
22
Publication, and it described the property with reasonable particularity by the amount of the
23
Defendant Funds. (Doc. 15 at 3.) The notice clearly stated the time requirements to file a claim
24
and an answer. (Id.) Further, the notice provided the name of the attorney to be served with any
25
claim and answer. (Id.) Thus, the Supplemental Rule’s notice-content requirements have been
26
satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(ii)(A)–(C). Additionally, the notice was published for
27
28
9
1
30 consecutive days from May 2, 2012, through May 31, 2012, on the forfeiture website, which
2
satisfies the Supplemental Rule’s notice requirements with regard to frequency and means.
3
(Doc. 15 at 4.)
4
c.
Personal Notice
5
When the Government knows the identity of the property owner, the Due Process Clause
6
of the Fifth Amendment requires “the Government to make a greater effort to give him notice
7
than otherwise would be mandated.” United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th
8
Cir. 1998). In such cases, the Government must attempt to provide notice by means reasonably
9
calculated under all circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action.
10
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R.
11
G(4)(b). “Reasonable notice, however, requires only that the [G]overnment attempt to provide
12
actual notice; it does not require that the [G]overnment demonstrate that it was successful in
13
providing actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v. United States 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir.
14
2005); Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1316.
15
The Supplemental Rules indicate that the Government must send notice of the forfeiture
16
action “to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to
17
the government.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i). The notice must include the following
18
information: the date when the notice is sent; a deadline for filing a claim that is at least 35 days
19
after the notice is sent; that an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 21
20
days after filing the claim; and the name of the government attorney to be served with the claim
21
and answer. Id. Here, the Government provided notice of the forfeiture action by mailing
22
copies of the required documentation, via both certified and first class mail, to Ryan
23
Bagdasarian at his last known address, and a signed certified mail receipt was received by the
24
Government. (See Magee Decl. ¶ 5 and Ex. A.) The Government mailed copies of the required
25
documentation, via both certified and first class mail, to Mark Bagdasarian and Maureen
26
Bagdasarian at their last known address, and signed certified mail receipts signed by Mark
27
28
10
1
Bagdasarian were received by the Government. (See Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 5–6 and Exs. A & B.)
2
Mark Bagdasarian was also sent notice to his defense counsel. (See id. ¶ 7.) Therefore,
3
reasonable attempts at serving notice on the potential claimants were made.
4
d.
The Time to File a Claim or an Answer
5
Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, any person who asserts an interest in or a right in a
6
forfeiture action must file a claim with the Court within the time specified by the direct notice.
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4)(b)(ii)(B), (5)(a)(ii)(A). Failure to comply with the procedural
8
requirements for opposing the forfeiture precludes a person from establishing standing in the
9
forfeiture proceeding. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317.
10
Here, more than 30 days have passed since the completion of publication, and more than
11
35 days have passed since the date that the known potential claimants were provided direct
12
notice of the Government’s complaint in this action. Accordingly, the time to file a claim has
13
expired, and pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of the
14
Court properly entered defaults against Ryan Bagdasarian, Mark Bagdasarian, and Maureen
15
Bagdasarian.3
16
e.
Conclusion
17
The Court finds that the Government has met the procedural requirements applicable to
18
civil in rem forfeiture actions as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 983, the Supplemental Rules, and the
19
Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This favors the
20
entry of default judgment and the issuance of a final judgment in forfeiture to vest in the United
21
States all right, title, and interest in the Defendant Funds.
22
3.
23
Beyond satisfaction of the procedural requirements, the discretionary Eitel factors
24
outlined by the Ninth Circuit also favor granting the Government’s motion for default judgment.
Discretionary Eitel Factors
25
26
3
27
Mark Bagdasarian and Maureen Bagdasarian timely filed their claim and answer, but they have been withdrawn.
(See Docs. 21 & 22.)
28
11
1
First, the Government would be prejudiced by the denial of its motion, spending additional time
2
and effort litigating an action in which claimants have withdrawn their claims. Second, the
3
Government’s claims appear to have merit. Third, as set forth above, the Government has
4
adhered to the procedural requirements of a forfeiture action in rem, including the filing of a
5
sufficient complaint. Fourth, the sum of money in dispute here is not substantial enough to
6
warrant the denial of the Government’s motion. See United States v. Approximately $88,029.00
7
in U.S. Currency, No. 1:16-cv-01548-DAD-BAM, 2017 WL 1273768, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17,
8
2017) (deeming approximately $88,029.00 “not substantial enough to warrant denial” of the
9
government’s motion for default judgment). Fifth, there are no genuine disputed issues of
10
material fact. Sixth, it does not appear that the failure of any other claimant to answer is due to
11
excusable neglect. Finally, although merits-based decisions are always preferred, it is not
12
practical, where, as here, claimants have withdrawn their claims. Accordingly, there is no
13
impediment to default judgment sought by the Government and the Court will recommend that
14
the Application be granted.
V.
15
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16
For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS that:
17
1.
The Government’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of Default Judgment against
18
the interests of Mark Bagdasarian, Maureen Bagdasarian, and Ryan Bagdasarian (Doc. 26) be
19
GRANTED;
20
2.
The Clerk of the Court enter a final judgment of forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
21
§ 881(a)(6), forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the Defendant Funds to the United States to
22
be disposed of according to law; and
23
3.
Within ten (10) days of service of an order adopting these findings and
24
recommendations, the United States shall submit a proposed final judgment of forfeiture
25
consistent with the findings and recommendations and order adopting them.
26
27
28
12
1
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
2
action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days
3
of 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 a document should be
5
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district
6
judge will review the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of
7
the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C).
8
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order.
9
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F. 3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F. 2d
10
The parties are advised that failure to file
1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 24, 2017
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
.
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?