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

Filing 40

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/22/2015 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED until 12/29/2015. On or before 12/29/2015, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)

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

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

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,

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

17

Defendant.
18
19

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

20

H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to collectively as

21

"claimants") submit the following Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Proposed

22

Order.

23

This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28, 2011, February 1, 2012,

24

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

25

October 30, 2013, March 27, 2014, September 8, 2014, and March 4, 2015, based on the on-going

26

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

27

(hereafter "defendant property"). To date, several individuals have been charged with federal criminal

28

crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the defendant property, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-00275-JAM and
1

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1

2:11-CR-00276-JAM; but neither David Johns nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the defendant

2

property, have been charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or federal authorities.
1.

3

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

4

Mary Johns, Major Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their Answers and will not be

5

required to do so until the stay contemplated by this stipulation expires.
2.

6
7

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i).

The United States contends that the defendant property was used to facilitate the cultivation of marijuana.
3.

8

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

9

criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property. Nevertheless, the United

10

States intends to depose claimants David and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant

11

property, as well as their knowledge and participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the

12

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

13

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

14

losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment

15

rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth

16

Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the

17

claims they filed with this court.
4.

18

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

19

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

20

Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would

21

adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged underlying criminal

22

conduct.
5.

23

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

24

effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove

25

their claim to the property and to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly

26

request that the matter be stayed until December 29, 2015, in accordance with the terms of this

27

///

28

///
2

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1

stipulation. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any,

2

and will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

3

Dated: 9/21/2015

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

4

By:

5

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

6
7
8

Dated: 9/21/2015

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

Dated: 9/21/2015

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

9
10
11
12
13

(Signatures authorized by email)
14

ORDER

15
16

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2),

17

and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until December 29, 2015. On or before December 29, 2015, the parties will

18

advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/22/2015

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order