USA v. Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046

Filing 11

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/14/11 ORDERING the matter STAYED until 12/1/11. On or before 12/1/11, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 4 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916)554-2700 5 Attorneys for the United States 2 3 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9445 FRUITRIDGE ROAD, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, APN NOS: 063-0060-045 AND 063-0060-046 INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, Defendant. 2:11-CV-01902-JAM-DAD STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER DATE: N/A TIME: N/A COURTROOM: N/A 19 20 The United States, and Claimants David Johns, Mary Johns, 21 and Major Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson 22 Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to collectively as 23 "claimants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby 24 stipulate that a stay is necessary in the above-entitled action, 25 and request that the Court enter an order staying further 26 proceedings until December 1, 2011 due to an on-going criminal 27 investigation into marijuana cultivation at 9445 28 Road, Sacramento, California (hereafter "defendant property"). 1 Fruitridge Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order 1 David and Mary Johns are the record owners of the defendant 2 property, which is an approximately fourteen acre parcel with a 3 business office, a large greenhouse facility, and a residence. 4 1. Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the 5 defendant property. 6 Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their Answers 7 and will not be required to do so until the stay contemplated by 8 this stipulation expires. 9 2. Claimants David Johns, Mary Johns, Major The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 10 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i). 11 contends that the defendant property was used to facilitate the 12 cultivation of marijuana. 13 3. The United States To date, several individuals have been charged with 14 federal criminal crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the 15 defendant property, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-0275-JAM-DAD and 16 2:11-CR-0276-JAM-DAD; but neither David Johns nor Mary Johns have 17 been charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or 18 federal authorities. 19 statute of limitations has not expired on potential criminal 20 charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property. 21 Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants David 22 and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant 23 property, as well as their knowledge and participation in large 24 scale marijuana cultivation, including the marijuana grow at the 25 defendant property. 26 claimants will be placed in the difficult position of either 27 invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination 28 and losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant It is the United States’ position that the If discovery proceeds at this time, 2 Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order 1 property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting 2 to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. 3 they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will 4 be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the 5 claims they filed with this court. 6 4. If In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, 7 the agents involved with this investigation, including but not 8 limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration 9 and the Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the 10 law enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the 11 ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged 12 underlying criminal conduct. 13 5. The parties recognize that proceeding with these 14 actions at this time has potential adverse effects on the 15 investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the 16 claimants' ability to prove their claim to the property and to 17 assert any defenses to forfeiture. 18 parties jointly request that these matters be stayed until 19 December 1, 2011, in accordance with the terms of this 20 stipulation. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// For these reasons, the At that time the parties will advise the court of 3 Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order 1 the status of the criminal investigation, if any, and will advise 2 the court whether a further stay is necessary. 3 4 Dated: 9/14/11 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney 5 6 By: 7 /s/ Kevin C. Khasigian KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 8 9 Dated: Sept. 13, 2011 /s/ Kristin S. Door KRISTIN S. DOOR Attorney for claimants David Johns and Mary Johns Dated: 9/14/11 /s/ Douglas A. MacDonald by Timothy E. Hodgson, Esq. CSB# 108398 DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD Attorney for claimants Major Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (Signatures retained by attorney) 17 18 ORDER 19 For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed 20 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 21 881(i) until December 1, 2011. 22 the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is 23 necessary. 24 25 On or before December 1, 2011, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/14/2011 /s/ John A. Mendez JOHN A. MENDEZ United States District Judge 26 27 28 4 Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order

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?