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

Filing 55

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/28/2016 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED until 1/30/2017. On or before 1/30/2017, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney 2 KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 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 15 16 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER v. 13 14 2:11-CV-01902-JAM-DB 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 Laurel Nilson1, Trustee of the 20 Nilson Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to collectively as "claimants") submit the following 21 Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Proposed Order. 22 This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28, 2011, February 1, 2012, 23 May 1, 2012, August 1, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 30, 2013, April 30, 2013, July 30, 2013, 24 October 30, 2013, March 27, 2014, September 8, 2014, March 4, 2015, September 22, 2015, December 25 28, 2015, February 26, 2016, May 26, 2016, August 26, 2016, and November 28, 2016, based on the on- 26 going criminal investigation into marijuana cultivation at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California 27 28 1 Laurel Nilson is the Successor Trustee for the Nilson Family Revocable Trust. Major Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson are both deceased. 1 Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Order 1 (hereafter "defendant property"). To date, several individuals have been charged with federal criminal 2 crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the defendant property, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-00275-JAM and 3 2:11-CR-00276-JAM; but neither David Johns nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the defendant 4 property, have been charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or federal authorities. 5 1. Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the defendant property. Claimants David Johns 6 and Mary Johns filed their Answer on October 13, 2016. Claimant Laurel Nilson has not yet filed her 7 Answer and will not be required to do so until the stay contemplated by this stipulation expires. 8 9 10 2. 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. It is the United States’ position that the statute of limitations has not expired on potential 11 criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property. Nevertheless, the United 12 States intends to depose claimants David and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant 13 property, as well as their knowledge and participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the 14 marijuana grow at the defendant property. If discovery proceeds at this time, claimants will be placed in 15 the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and 16 losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment 17 rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth 18 Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the 19 claims they filed with this court. 20 4. In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this 21 investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 22 Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would 23 adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged underlying criminal 24 conduct. 25 5. The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has potential adverse 26 effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove 27 their claim to the property and to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly 28 request that the matter be stayed until January 30, 2017, in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. 2 Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Order 1 At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any, and will 2 advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. 3 Dated: 12/28/16 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney 4 By: 5 6 /s/ Kevin C. Khasigian KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 7 8 Dated: 12/28/16 /s/ Brenda Grantland BRENDA GRANTLAND Attorney for claimants David Johns and Mary Johns Dated: 12/28/16 /s/ Douglas A. MacDonald DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD Attorney for claimant Laurel Nilson, Trustee of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust 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 January 30, 2017. On or before January 30, 2017, the parties will advise the 18 court whether a further stay is necessary. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 12/28/2016 /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

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?