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)

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: [phone]

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