United States of America v. Real Property located at 7520 Muirfield Way, Sacramento, California et al
Filing
9
RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 12/23/14 ORDERING that action No. 2:14-CV-02941 is reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and for all further proceedings, and any date currently set in the reassigned case is VAC ATED. Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall show the initials GEB-DAD. A Status Conference is SET for 5/4/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior. The Clerk shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
8
9
10
11
v.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RELATED CASE ORDER
GUO NENG MA, and ASHLEY
CHANG,
Defendants.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
15
2:14-cr-00330-GEB
Plaintiff,
12
13
No.
No.
Plaintiff,
v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7520
MUIRFIELD WAY, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 048-0270-0430000, INCLUDING ALL
APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7455
WILLOWWICK WAY, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 047-0265-0090000, INCLUDING ALL
APPURTENANCES AND
MPROVEMENTS THERETO,
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2381
KENWORTHY WAY, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 053-0021-0100000, INCLUDING ALL
APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, and
28
1
2:14-cv-02941-MCE-DAD
1
2
3
4
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1724
S STREET, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 009-0096-0080000, INCLUDING ALL
APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,
5
Defendants.
6
On December 19, 2014, the government filed a “Notice of
7
8
Related Cases” in which it states:
9
The United States of America, by and
through
its
undersigned
attorney,
and
pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 123,
hereby gives notice that the above-entitled
actions are related within the meaning of
Local Rule 123 because the civil forfeiture
action and the criminal action arise from the
same
law
enforcement
investigation
and,
therefore, involve substantially the same
events,
transactions,
and
parties.
Particularly, the related criminal action
alleges that Ashley Chang and Guo Neng Ma
conspired to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute marijuana in the Eastern
District of California from December 2013 to
October 2014. The instant civil forfeiture
complaint
alleges
that
the
defendant
properties are forfeitable to the United
States based on its connection to Chang’s
marijuana trafficking. Accordingly, the civil
forfeiture case and the related criminal
action create an identity of issues and are
likely to entail substantial duplication of
labor if heard by different judges.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
For the foregoing reasons, the United
States respectfully requests that the two
cases be assigned to a single district judge.
22
23
24
(Notice of Related Cases, ECF No. 23.)
25
Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that
26
they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the
27
regular
28
assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first
practice
of
this
Court,
2
related
cases
are
generally
1
filed action was assigned.
2
is reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and for all
3
further proceedings, and any date currently set in the reassigned
4
case is VACATED. Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the
5
reassigned case shall show the initials “GEB-DAD.”
Therefore, action No. 2:14-CV-02941
6
Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in action No.
7
2:14-cv-02941 before the undersigned judge on May 4, 2015, at
8
9:00 a.m.
9
fourteen (14) days prior.1
10
A joint status report shall be filed no later than
The
Clerk
of
the
Court
shall
make
appropriate
11
adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for
12
this reassignment.
13
Dated:
December 23, 2014
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the
preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from
their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order.
In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely
submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was
unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.
3
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?