United States of America v. Approximately $7, 960.00 in U.S. Currency et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/7/2012 ORDERING that the United States' 34 Motion to Strike is GRANTED. The Claims of Jamarus Smith and Monique Banks are STRICKEN for failing to comply with Rule G(5) and/or pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A)-(B) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions because said claimants lacks standing. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 No. 2:10-CV-02167-MCE-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING CLAIMS OF JAMARUS SMITH AND MONIQUE BANKS PURSUANT TO RULE G(8)(c) OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME AND ASSET FORFEITURE ACTIONS v. 15 APPROXIMATELY $7,960.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 16 APPROXIMATELY $2,260.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 17 18 APPROXIMATELY $3,195.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 19 APPROXIMATELY $3,927.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, and 20 21 22 2007 CADILLAC ESCALADE EXT, 3GYFK62837G222266, LICENSE NUMBER 8W03721, VIN: Defendants. 23 24 25 26 Presently before the Court is the United States’ Motion to 27 Strike the Claims of Jamarus Smith and Monique Banks pursuant to 28 Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A)-(B) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 1 1 Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the “Supplemental 2 Rules”). 3 Smith or Banks. 4 good cause appearing therfor, the Court finds as follows: 5 1. No opposition was made to the Motion on behalf of either After having read and considered the motion, and On October 6, 2011, the parties filed a joint status 6 report in the case. 7 specified that claimants Jamarus Smith and Monique Banks’ answers 8 would be filed no later than November 5, 2011. 9 2. In the joint status report, the parties Supplemental Rule G(5)(b) provides that a claimant must 10 file an answer or a Rule 12 motion within twenty-one days after 11 filing a claim. 12 12 motion, the United States may move to strike a claim or answer 13 "at any time before trial" for “failing to comply with Rule G(5)” 14 and/or “because the claimant lacks standing.” 15 Supp. G(8)(c)(i)(A)-(B). 16 3. If the claimant does not file an answer or a Rule Fed. R. Civ. P. Statutory standing requires the claimant to comply with 17 certain procedural and statutory requirements. 18 39,557.00, More or Less, in U.S. Currency, 683 F. Supp. 2d 335, 19 338-39 (D.N.J. 2010). 20 understated, since the Answer provides the opportunity to present 21 defenses as to why a claimant has standing to contest the 22 forfeitability of the defendant property. 23 Board Feet and 11 Doors and Casings, No. 1:07cv1100-GBL, 2008 WL 24 839792 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2008). 25 strict compliance with the Supplemental Rules. 26 $487,825 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662, 664–65 (3d Cir. 2007). 27 /// 28 /// United States v. The importance of filing an Answer cannot be 2 United States v. 1866.75 Courts have held claimants to United States v. 1 4. To date, no Answers submitted by either Jamarus Smith or 2 Monique Banks have been filed, or have been served on counsel for 3 the United States. 4 accordingly GRANTED.1 5 ADJUDGED that the Claims of Jamarus Smith and Monique Banks in the 6 above-styled civil action are stricken for failing to comply with 7 Rule G(5) and/or pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A)-(B) of the 8 Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset 9 Forfeiture Actions because said claimants lacks standing. 10 11 The United States’ Motion (ECF No. 34) is Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2012 12 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Having determined that oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court submitted this matter on the briefs in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 230(g). 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?