USA v. Real Property located at 1932 Naomi Way, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN: 266-0160-005-0000 et al
Filing
16
STIPULATION and ORDER to STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS until the resolution of companion criminal cases signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/6/2018. The parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of the conclusion of the parallel criminal cases, or as the court deems appropriate. Case stayed. (York, M)
4
McGREGOR W. SCOTT
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
15
16
17
2:18−CV−00746−KJM−CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1932
NAOMI WAY, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 266-0160-005-0000,
INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES
AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, and
20
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2117
SOUTH AVENUE, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, APN: 252-0183-012-0000,
INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES
AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,
21
STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER
Defendants.
18
19
22
The United States and Claimants Danyun Liu and First Life LLC hereby stipulate that a stay is
23 necessary in the above-entitled action and request that the Court enter an order staying all further
24 proceedings until the resolution of the related criminal cases, United States v. Leonard Yang, et al., Case
25 2:16-CR-00189-KJM and United States v. Xiu Ping Li, et al., Case No. 2:17-CR-00136-KJM.
26
1.
This is a forfeiture in rem action against two properties pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7)
27 because they were allegedly used to commit or facilitate violations of federal drug laws:
28
1
Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order
1
a.
Real Property located at 1932 Naomi Way, Sacramento, California, the “Defendant
Naomi Way.” Danyun Liu has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant
Naomi Way.
2
3
b.
Real Property located at 2117 South Avenue, Sacramento, California, the
“Defendant South Avenue.” Danyun Liu has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest
in defendant South Avenue. First Life LLC filed a claim asserting a lienholder interest in
defendant South Avenue.
4
5
6
2.
The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. §
7 881(i). The United States contends that the defendant properties were used and intended to be used to
8 commit or facilitate violations of federal drug laws in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq. Claimants
9 deny these allegations.
10
3.
To date, several individuals have been charged with federal crimes related to marijuana
11 manufacturing and distribution in United States v. Leonard Yang, et al., Case 2:16-CR-00189-KJM and
12 United States v. Xiu Ping Li, et al., Case No. 2:17-CR-00136-KJM. It is the United States’ position that
13 the statute of limitations has not expired on potential criminal charges relating to the drug trafficking
14 involving the defendant properties. Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants (and
15 others) regarding their ownership of the defendant properties, as well as their knowledge and
16 participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the marijuana grow at the defendant
17 properties, as well as the circumstances behind the purchase of the properties. If discovery proceeds at
18 this time, claimants will be placed in the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment
19 rights against self-incrimination and losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant properties,
20 or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating
21 themselves. If they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability
22 to explore the factual basis for the claims they filed with this court.
23
4.
In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this
24 investigation, including but not limited to, the agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
25 Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would adversely impact the federal
26 prosecution and ongoing investigation.
27
5.
The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has potential adverse
28 effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimant’s ability to assert
2
Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order
1 any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that these matters be stayed until
2 the conclusion of the related criminal cases. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of
3 the criminal investigation, if any, and will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.
4
6.
If any of the defendant properties go into default, the parties reserve the right to seek all
5 avenues of redress to preserve the real properties, including filing a motion for interlocutory sale or
6 seeking a receiver appointment to collect rents and maintain the properties.
7 Dated: 7/30/2018
8
McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
By:
9
10
11 Dated: 7/30/2018
12
13
/s/ Kevin C. Khasigian
KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
/s/ J. Patrick McCarthy
J. PATRICK MCCARTHY
Attorney for Claimants Danyun Liu and
First Life LLC
14
15
16
17
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2) and
18 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until the resolution of companion criminal cases. The parties shall file a joint status
19 report within 30 days of the conclusion of the parallel criminal cases, or as the court deems appropriate.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 DATED: August 6, 2018
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation to Stay Further Proceedings and Order
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?