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

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/8/14: This matter is stayed until March 30, 2015. On or before March 30, 2015, the parties shall advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kaminski, H)

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
2 KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: [phone]
1

5

Attorneys for the United States

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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,

2:11-CV-01902-JAM-DAD
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER

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

Defendant.

19
20

The United States of America and David Johns, Mary Johns, and Major Amos Nilson

21

and Lucy H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to

22

collectively as "claimants") submit the following Request for Extension of Stay of Further

23

Proceedings and Proposed Order.

24

This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28, 2011,

25

February 1, 2012, May 1, 2012, August 1, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 30, 2013, April

26

30, 2013, July 30, 2013, October 30, 2013, and March 27, 2014 based on the on-going

27

criminal investigation into marijuana cultivation at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento,

28

California (hereafter "defendant property"). To date, several individuals have been charged
1

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1

with federal criminal crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the defendant property,

2

Case Nos. 2:11-CR-00275-JAM and 2:11-CR-00276-JAM; but neither David Johns nor Mary

3

Johns, the record owners of the defendant property, have been charged with any criminal

4

offense by state, local, or federal authorities.
1.

5

Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the defendant property. Claimants

6

David Johns, Mary Johns, Major Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their

7

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

8

expires.
2.

9

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21

10

U.S.C. § 881(i). The United States contends that the defendant property was used to

11

facilitate the cultivation of marijuana.
3.

12

It is the United States’ position that the statute of limitations has not expired

13

on potential criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property.

14

Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants David and Mary Johns

15

regarding their ownership of the defendant property, as well as their knowledge and

16

participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the marijuana grow at the

17

defendant property. If discovery proceeds at this time, claimants will be placed in the

18

difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-

19

incrimination and losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant property, or

20

waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially

21

incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States

22

will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the claims they filed with this

23

court.

24

4.

In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved

25

with this investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement

26

Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law

27

enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities

28

to investigate the alleged underlying criminal conduct.
2

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1
2

5.

The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has

3

potential adverse effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or

4

upon the claimants' ability to prove their claim to the property and to assert any defenses

5

to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that the matter be stayed until

6

March 30, 2015, in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. At that time the parties

7

will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any, and will advise the

8

court whether a further stay is necessary.

9

Dated: 9/4/14

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

10

By:

11
12

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

13
14

Dated: 9/3/14

/s/ Brenda Grantland
BRENDA GRANTLAND
Attorney for claimants
David Johns and Mary Johns

Dated: 9/3/14

/s/ Douglas A. MacDonald
DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD
Attorney for claimants Major
Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson

15
16
17
18
19

(Signatures authorized by email)

20

ORDER

21
22

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

23

981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until March 30, 2015. On or before March 30,

24

2015, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/8/2014

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

28
3

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order