United States v. Approximately $460,520.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES ADDITIONAL TIME TO DIRECTLY SERVE NOTICE TO POTENTIAL CLAIMANT, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/9/2016. (Kusamura, W)

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

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1878 AWI MJS

Plaintiff
v.
APPROXIMATELY $460,520.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,
Defendant

14

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES
ADDITIONAL TIME TO DIRECTLY
SERVE NOTICE TO POTENTIAL
CLAIMANT
(Doc. No. 14)

15
16
17

On May 26, 2016, the Court granted in part a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

18

regarding Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. See Doc. No. 13. The Court did not grant a

19

complete default because it had concerns about whether direct notice was provided or reasonably

20

could have been provided to the purported owner “Marcia” of the vehicle or to the registered

21

owner of the vehicle (the Defendant funds were found in SUV). See id. The Court requested that

22

Plaintiff provide supplemental briefing regarding the owner of the vehicle and “Marcia.” See id.

23

On June 8, 2016, the United States responded by requesting that the Court allow 60 days for the

24

registered owner of the vehicle to be given notice and to file a claim if she intends to do so. See

25

Doc. No. 14. If no notice of claim is filed, then Plaintiff states that it will move for default

26

judgment. See id.

27
28

The Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to attempt to provide direct notice to the
registered owner of the vehicle. However, as discussed in the Court’s May 26, 2016 order, the

1

Court understands that law enforcement actually spoke on the phone to someone named “Marcia,”

2

who purported to be the owner of the vehicle. Vehicles may be sold, and there may be lag times

3

or oversites in the registration/transfer process. Therefore, unless it can be determined that the

4

“Marcia” who spoke to law enforcement is the registered owner of the vehicle, Plaintiff shall

5

attempt to provide direct notice not only to the registered owner, but also to “Marcia,” if possible.1

6
7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

9
10

is GRANTED;
2.

Within 60 days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall attempt to provide direct notice to
the registered owner of the vehicle in question and to “Marcia”; and

11
12

Plaintiff’s request for 60 days in which to provide direct notice to the owner of the vehicle

3.

If, after direct notice is accomplished, no claim is filed, then Plaintiff may file a motion for
default judgment.2

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If law enforcement determined who “Marcia” was when they spoke to her, and obtained contact information for her,
then it should be relatively easy to provide “Marcia” with direct notice. If the information law enforcement obtained
is not accurate or no longer valid, then direct notice to “Marcia” may not be possible.
2

The motion for default judgment should address the registered owner and “Marcia.”

2