United States of America v. Approximately $227,555.00 in U.S. Currency et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/25/2017 RECOMMENDING 15 that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture be granted; that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case; Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
4 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U. S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 5 Attorneys for the United States 1 2 3 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 2:17-CV-01204-WBS-KJN Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. APPROXIMATELY $227,555.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, and 15 16 APPROXIMATELY $294,191.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 17 Defendants. 18 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Kendall J. Newman on the United States’ ex parte 19 motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture, filed on August 18, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) 20 That same day, the court issued a minute order requiring any opposition to the motion to be filed within 21 28 days. (ECF No. 16.) Although that deadline has now passed, no opposition was filed. There was 22 also no appearance by or on behalf of any other person or entity claiming an interest in the above23 captioned defendant currency. Based on the United States’ motion and the files and records of the 24 court, THE COURT FINDS as follows: 25 1. This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem filed June 8, 2017. 26 2. The United States has moved this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 540, for entry of default 27 judgment of forfeiture against potential claimants Daniel Munoz Acosta and Ruby Delgadillo. 28 29 30 3. The United States has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that potential 1 Findings and Recommendations 1 claimants Daniel Munoz Acosta and Ruby Delgadillo received notice of the forfeiture action; that any 2 and all other unknown potential claimants have been served by publication; and that grounds exist for 3 entry of a final judgment of forfeiture. 4 Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 5 1. That Daniel Munoz Acosta and Ruby Delgadillo be held in default; 6 2. That the United States’ motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture 7 (ECF No. 15) be granted; 8 3. That judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interest of potential 9 claimants Daniel Munoz Acosta and Ruby Delgadillo in the defendant currency referenced in the above 10 caption; 11 4. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant 12 currency to the United States, to be disposed of according to law; 13 5. That The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 15 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being 16 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court 17 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 18 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and 19 filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 20 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 21 order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 22 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: September 25, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2 Findings and Recommendations

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?