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)

Download PDF
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?