USA v. Real Property located at 8911 Highway 49, Mokelumne Hill, California, Calaveras County, APN: 018-019-057-0000 et al
Filing
98
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/15/19 RECOMMENDING that 90 Motion for Default Judgment, be granted, thus extinguishing any right, title, or interest in defendant real property of potential claimant Xiulan Yang. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. 2:18-cv-00747-KJM-CKD
v.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8911
HIGHWAY 49, MOKELUMNE HILL,
CALIFORNIA, CALAVERAS COUNTY,
APN: 018–019–057–0000, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
I.
Introduction
19
This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28
20
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This is a civil forfeiture action against real property located at 6199 Highway
21
26, Valley Springs, California, Calaveras County, APN: 073-013-005-000, including all
22
appurtenances and improvements thereto (hereafter referred to as “defendant real property”).1
23
Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”) seeks default judgment against the interest of
24
Xiulan Yang (“Yang”). Plaintiff seeks entry of a final judgment of forfeiture that vests in the
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant real property is more fully described as follows: Lot 3032 of Rancho Calaveras,
Units No. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Tract No. 180, as shown on the official map thereof, filed for
record December 18, 1967, in Book 3, of Subdivision Maps, at page 12-12J, inclusive, Calaveras
County Records. (ECF No. 1 at 24 (Verified Compl. at Ex. I).)
1
1
Government all right, title, and interest in defendant real property.
The Government’s motion for entry of default judgment (ECF No. 90) came on regularly
2
3
for hearing on October 9, 2019. Assistant United States Attorney Kevin Khasigian appeared at
4
the hearing on behalf of the Government. Michael Gilligan, counsel for defendant Signet
5
Management, LLC, appeared telephonically. Yang did not appear at the hearing.
6
Upon review of the motion, supporting documents, and the oral representations of the
7
Government at the hearing, and good cause appearing, the court now issues the following
8
findings and recommendations.
9
II.
10
Background
This case is proceeding on the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem (“complaint”)
11
filed April 3, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint makes the following factual allegations:
12
In 2016, law enforcement identified Leonard Yang as a participant in a large-scale
13
residential marijuana operation in Sacramento County that involved seven Sacramento residences.
14
(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 11.) Each residential property connected to the criminal organization consumed
15
an unusually large amount of electricity and the properties were purchased with hard-money
16
financing and thousands of dollars wired to the United States from China. (Id.) In September
17
2016, law enforcement executed federal search warrants at the seven residences and seized more
18
than 5,000 marijuana plants. (Id. at ¶ 12.) In September 2016, Leonard Yang and three co-
19
conspirators were indicted. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
20
In 2017, law enforcement identified Xiu Ping Li and others as participants in a large-scale
21
marijuana cultivation and trafficking organization, and identified nine properties connected to
22
their illegal activities. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Federal search warrants were executed at the nine properties
23
in July 2017. (Id. at ¶ 15.) In September 2017, Xiu Ping Li was indicted along with several other
24
individuals. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
25
Following these federal investigations and indictments, state and local authorities searched
26
a number of additional properties that were identified by the investigations as potentially tied to
27
the organization under federal examination. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Ultimately, in 2017 and 2018, law
28
enforcement executed search warrants at twelve properties in Calaveras County, including the
2
1
defendant real property, and seized approximately 9,711 marijuana plants and over 100 pounds of
2
processed marijuana. (Id. at ¶¶ 18–21, 30.) Regarding the defendant real property, on January
3
11, 2018, law enforcement executed a state search warrant at the property and found an active
4
marijuana grow that contained 1,346 marijuana plants. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Yang, a resident of
5
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the listed owner of the defendant real property and purchased the
6
property for $360,000 in June 2017. (Id.)
7
The verified complaint alleges that defendant real property was used or intended to be
8
used, to commit or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, et seq.
9
(prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possessing of a controlled or counterfeit
10
substance), an offense punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment, and therefore subject to
11
forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6)–(7). (Id. at ¶¶ 34–35, 37.)
12
Pursuant to order of this court filed April 12, 2018, notice of this action was published on
13
the official internet government forfeiture site and ran for at least thirty
14
consecutive days, as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or
15
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. (ECF Nos. 3 (Order) and 19 (Declaration of
16
Publication).)
17
The U.S. Marshals Service posted defendant property with the verified complaint and
18
notice of complaint on April 27, 2018. (ECF No. 90-2 at ¶ 8; id. at 21.) On April 5, 2018, the
19
Government recorded a Lis Pendens (Notice of Pending Action) against defendant real property
20
with the Calaveras County Recorder. (ECF No. 12.)
21
On May 31, 2018, the U.S. Marshals Service attempted unsuccessfully to personally serve
22
the complaint and related documents upon Yang at his last known address. (ECF No. 90-2 at ¶ 6,
23
Ex. B.) Personal service upon Yang was again attempted on June 8 and June 18, 2018; the
24
documents were left at the residence on June 18, 2018. (Id.; see also ECF No. 63.) On April 23,
25
2018, copies of the complaint and related documents were sent by certified mail to Yang to his
26
last known address in Pittsburgh. (ECF No. 90-2 at ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The certified mail envelope was
27
signed for on April 27, 2019. (Id.)
28
To date, no claim or answer has been filed by, or on behalf of, Yang, as required by Rule
3
1
G(5) of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions,
2
to contest this action. (ECF No. 90-2 at ¶ 7.)
3
On July 24, 2018, at the Government’s request, the Clerk of Court entered default as to
4
Yang, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). (ECF No. 67.)
5
III.
Legal Standard
6
“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that ‘[n]o person
7
shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ Our precedents
8
establish the general rule that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard
9
before the Government deprives them of property.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real
10
Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 48 (1993) (citations omitted). Due process is satisfied when the Government
11
complies with the notice requirements set forth by statute and in the federal and local rules of
12
procedure.
13
Civil forfeitures of real property are governed generally by 18 U.S.C. § 985. Forfeiture
14
actions in rem arising from a federal statute are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
15
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions
16
(“Supplemental Rule” or “Supp. Rule”). United States v. Real Prop., 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th
17
Cir. 1998); see also Supp. Rule A(1)(B), and Supp. Rule G (setting forth specific procedural and
18
notice requirements). These rules are reflected in the Local Admiralty and In Rem Rules for the
19
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (“Local Rule”), which govern all in rem
20
proceedings filed in this court. See Local Rule 500. Local Rule 540 sets forth the procedures for
21
obtaining default judgment in an action in rem.
22
IV.
Analysis
23
Local Rule 540(d) provides for an ex parte hearing and entry of default judgment, without
24
further notice, at any time after the time for answer has expired, provided due notice of the action
25
has been given and no one has appeared to claim the property and give security thereof. The
26
Government has demonstrated compliance with these requirements, subject to the rights of the
27
lienholder in defendant property.
28
///
4
1
A.
2
Notice
1.
3
Posted Notice on Defendant Property
Local Rule 540(a) sets forth the requirements for achieving due notice of an action in rem
4
commencing upon the “arrest” of the property. The Government may initiate a civil forfeiture
5
action against real property by filing a verified complaint, posting notice of the complaint on the
6
property, and serving notice on the property owner. 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(1)(B) (“The Government
7
shall initiate a civil forfeiture action against real property by . . . (B) posting a notice of the
8
complaint on the property”); see also Supp. Rule G(2) (requirements of the complaint).
9
The Government posted notice of the instant complaint on defendant real property on April 27,
10
2018. (ECF No. 90-2 at ¶ 8; id. at 21.)
11
2.
Published Notice
12
Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) provides that the requisite notice of the forfeiture action
13
may be met by timely notifying potential claimants of the action by posting a notice on an official
14
internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.
15
Pursuant to order of this court filed April 12, 2018 (ECF No. 3), the Government
16
published notice of this action on the official internet government forfeiture site
17
for 30 consecutive days. (ECF No. 19.)
18
3.
19
Actual Notice
Congress has specified that in civil forfeiture actions against real property, the
20
Government shall “serv[e] notice on the property owner, along with a copy of the complaint.” 18
21
U.S.C. § 985(c)(1) (C); see also Local Rule 540(a)(2) (personal service on individual having
22
custody of the property), and (4) (personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
23
all individuals known to have an actual interest in the property). Supplemental Rule G provides
24
that “[t]he notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.”
25
Supp. Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(A).
26
The Government provided actual notice to all potential claimants in this action, including
27
Yang.
28
///
5
1
B.
Time for Filing a Claim and Answer Has Expired
2
An individual asserting an interest in defendant real property may contest the forfeiture
3
action by filing a claim not later than 35 days after notice, or not later than 30 days after the final
4
publication. Supp. Rule G(a)(ii)(A) and (B). The claimant must file an answer to the complaint
5
within 21 days after filing the claim. Supp. Rule G(b). See Real Prop., 135 F.3d at 1317
6
(explaining that standing to contest in rem civil forfeiture action is dependent upon compliance
7
with filing requirements).
8
The Return Receipt for notice served on Yang was signed and returned on April 27, 2018.
9
(ECF No. 90-2 at 8.) Final notice by publication was May 19, 2018. The most extended deadline
10
for filing a claim was 30 days after final notice by publication, or Monday, June 18, 2018. To
11
date—October 2019—Yang has not filed a claim or answer in this action, and the time for doing
12
so is long expired.
13
14
Accordingly, the Clerk’s entry of default upon Yang, the titled property owner, on July
24, 2018, was proper, and this motion for default judgment properly proceeds.
15
C.
Entry of Default Judgment is Proper
16
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk is required to enter default
17
when the fact of default is established by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The
18
Clerk’s entry of default against Yang effects his admission of the factual allegations of the
19
complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An
20
allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive
21
pleading is required and the allegation is not denied”); Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d
22
557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977).
23
The court finds that the well pleaded allegations of the verified complaint state a claim for
24
which relief can be granted. Specifically, accepting as true the factual allegations of the verified
25
complaint, the Government has demonstrated that defendant property was used or intended to be
26
used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of 21 U.S.C.
27
§§ 841, et seq. (prohibiting the manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possessing of a
28
controlled or counterfeit substance), an offense punishable by more than one year’s
6
1
imprisonment, and therefore subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
2
881(a)(7).
3
It remains within the sound discretion of the district court to grant a default judgment
4
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th
5
Cir. 1980). In making this determination, the court must consider the following factors set forth
6
in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986):
7
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of
plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint,
(4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a
dispute concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was
due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
8
9
10
11
The Government seeks a final judgment of forfeiture against Yang as the listed owner of the
12
defendant real property. This is consistent with the nature of forfeiture in rem proceedings. See
13
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n.12 (1958) (explaining that “[a] judgment in rem affects
14
the interests of all persons in designated property”).
15
Application of the Eitel factors supports entry of default judgment. First, the Government
16
would be prejudiced by the denial of its motion, spending additional time and effort litigating an
17
action in which the claimant has abandoned his claim to the defendant real property. Second, the
18
Government’s claims appear to have merit. Third, as set forth above, the Government has
19
adhered to the procedural requirements of a forfeiture action in rem, including the filing of a
20
sufficient verified complaint. Fourth, the defendant real property that was seized and subject to
21
forfeiture is not of such substantial value as to warrant denial of the Government’s motion. Fifth,
22
there are no genuine disputed issues of material fact. Sixth, there is no evidence that Yang’s
23
abandonment is due to excusable neglect. Finally, although merits-based decisions are always
24
preferred, it is not practical, as here, where Yang has abandoned his claims. Accordingly, there is
25
no impediment to default judgment sought by the Government and the court will recommend that
26
the motion be granted.
27
////
28
////
7
1
2
VI.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing findings, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the
3
Government’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 90) be GRANTED, thus extinguishing any
4
right, title, or interest in defendant real property of potential claimant Xiulan Yang.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
7
after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written
8
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that
10
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
11
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
Dated: November 15, 2019
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
15 USA747.default
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?