United States of America v. Approximately $25,900.00 in U.S. Currency
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/21/13 ORDERING that a Status Conference is set for 9/27/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-0858 JAM DAD PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
APPROXIMATELY $25,900.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,
16
Defendant.
17
The United States of America commenced this action on May 2, 2013, by filing a
18
19
verified complaint for forfeiture in rem. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 19, 2013, Gerard Richard,
20
proceeding pro se, filed a request for an extension of time to file an answer. (Doc. No. 9.) On
21
July 23, 2013, the matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
22
(Doc. No. 10.)
23
On July 24, 2013, the United States of America filed an opposition to the motion
24
for an extension of time, arguing that Mr. Richard had not filed a claim asserting an interest in the
25
defendant $25,900 in U.S. Currency and therefore was not a claimant who could file an answer
26
and that he had not established grounds upon which he should be allowed to now file an untimely
27
claim and answer. (Doc. No. 11.) On July 26, 2013, a document, styled as an answer, was filed
28
by Gerard Richard. (Doc. No. 13.) On August 14, 2013, Gerard Richard filed a “MOTION FOR
1
1
ACCEPTANCE OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED CLAIM.” (Doc. No. 14.) On August 16,
2
2013, the United States of America filed a document with the court styled as a “status report;
3
request for briefing schedule and postponement of the filing of a joint status report.” (Doc. No.
4
15.) In that filing the government appears to request a briefing schedule with respect to Mr.
5
Richard’s motion for extension of time to file an answer, to which the government already filed
6
opposition, and his motion for acceptance of previously submitted claims. However, it remains
7
unclear what it is precisely the government wishes to brief. The court concludes that a status
8
conference is appropriate to discuss with the parties how best to proceed in this action.
9
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
10
1. A Status Conference is set for Friday, September 27, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. at the
11
United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the
12
undersigned;
13
2. Any party may appear at the Status Conference telephonically if the party pre-
14
arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned
15
magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128 at least 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)
16
Conference. A land line telephone number must be provided; and
17
3. The parties are advised that failure to appear at the status conference, either in
18
person or telephonically, may result in the imposition by the Court of a sanction for failure to
19
comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183.
20
Dated: August 21, 2013
21
22
23
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\usv$25,900.0858
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?