United States of America v. Approximately $25,900.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/24/2014 DENYING claimant Gerard Richard's 25 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Claimant may file a Proposed Schedule for action within 14 days of date of Order if he desires to do so. (Marciel, M)

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

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0858 JAM DAD PS

v.

ORDER

APPROXIMATELY $25,900.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,

16

Defendant.

17
18

This matter came before the court on October 25, 2013, for a status conference.

19

Kevin Khasigian, Esq. appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Claimant Gerard Richard appeared

20

telephonically on his own behalf.
On October 28, 2013, the court issued an order requiring within thirty days that

21
22

Claimant Richard file and serve a proper verified claim, within twenty-one days thereafter

23

claimant Richard file and serve an answer, within fourteen days thereafter plaintiff file a proposed

24

schedule for this action and permitting claimant to file his own proposed schedule within fourteen

25

days thereafter. (Dkt. No. 20.) Thereafter, claimant Richard submitted a timely verified claim

26

and answer. However, when plaintiff failed to file a proposed schedule within the time permitted

27

by the court’s order for doing so, claimant Richard filed a motion seeking to have this forfeiture

28

/////
1

1

action dismissed with prejudice.1 (Dkt. No. 25.)

2
3

Claimant’s motion was not properly noticed for hearing in violation of Local Rule
230 and will, therefore, be denied without prejudice.2

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that claimant’s January 8, 2014 motion

5

to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) is denied without prejudice. Claimant may file a proposed schedule for

6

this action within fourteen days of the date of this order if he desires to do so..

7

Dated: January 24, 2014

8
9
10
11
12

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\usv$25,900.0858.mtd.den.ord.docx

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Soon thereafter plaintiff’s counsel filed a proposed schedule, explaining that the delay in filing
had been due to illness. (Dkt. No. 24.)
2

Although claimant’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice, claimant is advised that the
motion to dismiss filed on January 8, 2014, also appears to be both inadequate and without merit.
2