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)

Download PDF
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?