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

Filing 14

STIPULATION and ORDER for Stay signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/28/2011. This matter is STAYED until 2/1/2012. On or before 2/1/2012, parties will advise Court whether further stay is necessary. (Marciel, M)

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
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AND PROPOSED ORDER

DATE: N/A
TIME: N/A
COURTROOM: N/A

19
20

The United States of America and 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") submit the following Request for Extension of Stay

24

of Further Proceedings and Proposed Order.

25

This matter was stayed on September 15, 2011 (Doc. 11),

26

based on the on-going criminal investigation into marijuana

27

cultivation at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California

28

(hereafter "defendant property").
1

To date, several individuals
Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order

1

have been charged with federal criminal crimes related to

2

marijuana cultivation at the defendant property, Case Nos.

3

2:11-CR-0275-JAM-DAD and 2:11-CR-0276-JAM-DAD; but neither David

4

Johns nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the defendant

5

property, have been charged with any criminal offense by state,

6

local, or federal authorities.

7

1.

Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the

8

defendant property.

9

Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their Answers

10

and will not be required to do so until the stay contemplated by

11

this stipulation expires.

12

2.

Claimants David Johns, Mary Johns, Major

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§

13

981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i).

14

contends that the defendant property was used to facilitate the

15

cultivation of marijuana.

16

3.

The United States

It is the United States’ position that the statute of

17

limitations has not expired on potential criminal charges

18

relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property.

19

Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants David

20

and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant

21

property, as well as their knowledge and participation in large

22

scale marijuana cultivation, including the marijuana grow at the

23

defendant property.

24

claimants will be placed in the difficult position of either

25

invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination

26

and losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant

27

property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting

28

to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves.

If discovery proceeds at this time,

2

If

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order

1

they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will

2

be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the

3

claims they filed with this court.

4

4.

In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others,

5

the agents involved with this investigation, including but not

6

limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration

7

and the Internal Revenue Service.

8

law enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the

9

ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged

10

Allowing depositions of the

underlying criminal conduct.

11

5.

The parties recognize that proceeding with these

12

actions at this time has potential adverse effects on the

13

investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the

14

claimants' ability to prove their claim to the property and to

15

assert any defenses to forfeiture.

16

parties jointly request that these matters be stayed until

17

February 1, 2012, in accordance with the terms of this

18

stipulation.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

For these reasons, the

At that time the parties will advise the court of

3

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed 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: 11/23/11

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

5
6

By:

7

/s/ Kevin C. Khasigian
KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

8
9

Dated: 11/23/11

/s/ Kristin S. Door
KRISTIN S. DOOR
Attorney for claimants
David Johns and Mary Johns
(Authorized by email)

Dated: 11/23/2011

/s/ Douglas A. MacDonald
DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD
Attorney for claimants
Major Amos Nilson and Lucy H.
Nilson
(Signature retained by attorney)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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 February 1, 2012.

22

the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is

23

necessary.

24
25

On or before February 1, 2012,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/28/2011

/s/ John A. Mendez
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Judge

26
27
28
4

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order