United States of America v. $23,540 in United States Currency
Filing
18
ORDER GRANTING 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/18/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 14-02063 LB
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
v.
13
$23,540 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
14
15
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
[ECF No. 15]
16
INTRODUCTION
17
This is a judicial forfeiture action brought under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) involving the seizure of
18
Defendant $23,540 in United States currency. The clerk entered default, ECF No. 14, and the
19
United States now brings a Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”), ECF No. 15.1 A hearing on
20
the Motion was held on September 18, 2014. For the reasons stated below, and good cause
21
appearing, the motion is GRANTED.2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
2
The United States has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 686(c). See ECF No. 9. No other party appeared. In an in rem forfeiture proceeding, a
party that fails to comply with the applicable filing requirements is precluded from standing as a
“party” to the action, making it unnecessary to obtain the individual’s consent to proceed before a
magistrate judge. United States v. 5145 N. Golden State Blvd., 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998).
Therefore, the undersigned magistrate judge may enter judgment in this case.
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
STATEMENT
1
2
3
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
On November 20, 2013, two United States Postal Inspectors (“PIs”) Jason Chung and Aaron
Doo and a DEA Task Force Agent (“TFA”) Britt Elmore at the Post Office’s Oakland Processing
5
and Distribution Center “were engaged in routine parcel interdiction activities” to identify parcels
6
that might contain “controlled substances, the proceeds from trafficking in controlled substances or
7
currency intended to purchase controlled substances.” Complaint, ECF No. 1, ¶ 8. The PIs and
8
TFA identified an Express Mail parcel number EU 924364645 US (“Parcel”), which weighed 7
9
pounds, 5 ounces; measured 12 inches by 12 inches by 11 inches; and cost $71.70 to ship. Id. The
10
TFA’s narcotics detection canine indicated the presence of controlled substances in the Parcel. Id.
11
¶¶ 11-12.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
PI Chung further investigated the Parcel using an on-line law enforcement database called
13
Accurint and learned that the listed sender—Keith Armstrong, 912 Rockefeller Avenue, Tupelo, MS
14
38801—had an FBI NCIC criminal history report with a misdemeanor arrest for driving with a
15
suspended license in 2010. Id. ¶ 13(a). An Accurint query for the address—Lavish Clothing DYII
16
and Lavish Clothing—revealed no history. Id. ¶ 13(b). A web search showed no results for either
17
addressee in Oakland. Id. A search of the recipient’s address—2029 Damuth Street, Oakland, CA
18
94602—indicated it was likely a single family home. Id. ¶ 13(b). An Accurint query showed that an
19
individual named Mario Evans (DOB 4/9/1978) was associated with the address from August 2012
20
to November 2014. Id. ¶ 13(d). Evans’s FBI NCIC criminal history report showed more than 35
21
arrests in California between 1994 and 2013. Id. Of those, Evans had five drug related arrests and
22
dispositions between 2005 and 2012. Id.
23
After obtaining and executing a search warrant, the PI Chung opened the Parcel and found
24
$23,540 “concealed inside many layers within a duct taped metal stock pot wrapped in a bubble
25
wrapped white towel.” Id. ¶ 14. All but 10 of the 1288 bills were in denominations of $20 or less.
26
Id. The packaging and small denomination bills are both consistent with drug trafficking. Id.
27
Based on the totality of the circumstances, PI Chung seized Defendant $23,540. Id. ¶ 15.
28
An individual named Thaddeus Shaheed filed an administrative claim with the United States
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
2
1
Postal Service for Defendant on February 7, 2014. Id. ¶ 16. PI Chung searched a government
2
database named CLEAR and learned that Shaheed was associated with the recipient address in
3
Oakland from February 2010 to August 2011. Id. As of December 10, 2013, the USPS for holding
4
mail for Shaheed at that address. Id.
5
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND NOTICE
6
The United States filed this action on May 6, 2014. On May 9, 2014, the United States gave
parties four other individuals and the recipient’s address in Oakland (“Potential Claimants”) by
9
serving a copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture, the Notice of Forfeiture Action, the Warrant of
10
Arrest of Property In Rem, and related documents, via both certified and regular U.S. mail. See
11
Certificate of Service, ECF No. 7; see also Motion for Entry of Default, ECF No. 12. The United
12
For the Northern District of California
notice of this action directly to Armstrong, Lavish Clothing DYII, Evans, Shaheed, and four other
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
States also published notice of this forfeiture action on an official government website
13
(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on May 8, 2014. See Declaration
14
of Publication, ECF No. 11.
15
No one filed a verified claim to Defendant $23,540 or otherwise responded to this action. See
16
Motion, ECF No. 15 at 4; see generally Docket. The clerk entered default on August 5, 2014. See
17
ECF No. 14. On August 6, 2014, the government filed its motion for default judgment and noticed it
18
for September 18, 2014. See ECF No. 15. It served the Potential Claimants on August 6, 2014. See
19
ECF No. 16. The court held a hearing on September 18, 2014, and no one appeared to contest the
20
government’s motion.
21
22
23
ANALYSIS
I. JURISDICTION
The court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355(a), which vests
24
district courts with original jurisdiction in “any action or proceeding for the . . . enforcement of
25
any . . . forfeiture . . . incurred under any Act of Congress.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a).
26
II. LEGAL STANDARD
27
A. Forfeiture
28
The United States filed this action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides, in relevant part,
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
3
1
that property “subject to forfeiture” includes “[a]ll moneys . . . intended to be furnished by any
2
person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter[.]”
3
21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). See Complaint, ECF No. 1, at ¶ 1. Forfeiture is “harsh and oppressive” and
4
thus, is “not favored by the courts.” See United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d
5
1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit is “particularly wary of civil forfeiture statutes”
6
because they “impose ‘quasi-criminal’ penalties” but do not provide property owners with the
7
degree of procedural protections provided to criminal defendants. See id. at 1068; United States v.
8
Marlof, 173 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting $191,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at
9
1068)). Accordingly, strict adherence to procedural rules is paramount in civil forfeiture
to provide due notice to property owner); $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1068-69 (strictly
12
For the Northern District of California
proceedings. See Marlof, 173 F.3d at 1217 (denying forfeiture where government “erred” by failing
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
construing currency forfeiture provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 615 against government and holding that
13
“the burden on the government to adhere to procedural rules should be heavier than on claimants”).
14
B. Default Judgment
15
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a plaintiff may apply to the district court for—
16
and the court may grant—a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or
17
otherwise defend an action. Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to
18
enter a judgment lies within the court’s discretion. Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d
19
1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Still, “[a] defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the
20
plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” Draper 792 F.2d at 924-25. Default judgments generally are
21
disfavored because “cases should be decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v.
22
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). Where the clerk has already entered default, the court
23
must take as true the factual allegations of the complaint and other competent evidence submitted.
24
See Fair Hous. of Marin v. Coombs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v.
25
Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987).
26
In deciding whether to enter a default judgment, the court should consider: (1) the possibility of
27
prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the
28
complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute about the
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
4
1
material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy
2
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at
3
1471-72.
4
III. WHETHER DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE
5
In the present matter, the clerk entered default on August 5, 2014. See ECF No. 14.
6
Consequently, the factual allegations of the Government’s complaint are deemed to be true and the
7
court is vested with the authority to enter default judgment. The decision whether to exercise its
8
discretion to do so is guided by two overlapping inquiries. First, the court considers the
9
Government’s claims in light of the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel, 782 F.2d at 147172. Second, the court determines whether the Government has met the specific procedural
11
requirements governing forfeiture actions.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
A. Eitel Factors
13
The first Eitel factor supports granting default judgment because denying the motion would
14
likely prejudice the United States by leaving it without a remedy. The second and third factors also
15
support granting default judgment, as the United States’ allegations, assumed to be true, show that
16
the defendant funds are subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), as the funds were related
17
to drug trafficking. The sum of money at stake ($23, 540), though substantial, is not so large as to
18
warrant denial of the motion. As discussed in the procedural history and below, because the
19
Potential Claimants were properly served with the Complaint, Arrest Warrant, and Notice of
20
Forfeiture Action, and notice of these proceedings, there is no indication of a possible dispute
21
concerning material facts or that the default was due to excusable neglect. Finally, although there is
22
a strong public policy favoring a decision on the merits, no party has filed a verified claim for the
23
defendant funds, and thus deciding the case on the merits is not possible. Therefore, the
24
consideration of the Eitel factors as a whole weighs in favor of granting the Motion for Default
25
Judgment.
26
B. Compliance with Forfeiture Procedures
27
The Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (“Supplemental Rules”)
28
govern judicial forfeitures of property. United States v. 5145 N. Golden State Blvd., 135 F.3d 1312,
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
5
1
1315 (9th Cir. 1998). Under the Admiralty and Maritime Local Rule 6-1(a) for the Northern District
2
of California, “[a] party seeking a default judgment in an action in rem must show that due notice of
3
the action and arrest of the property has been given . . . [t]hrough execution of process in accordance
4
with Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(3); and . . . in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4).” Admir.
5
L.R. 6–1(a)(1).
6
7
1. Supplemental Rule G(3)
Supplemental Rule G(3) governs judicial authorization and process. Supplemental Rule G(3)
8
provides that “the clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is in the government’s
9
possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(3)(b)(i). In this case, a Warrant of Arrest
10
Supplemental Rule G(3) also states that “[t]he warrant and any supplemental process must be
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
of Property In Rem was issued on April 24, 2013. See ECF No. 3.
delivered to a person or organization authorized to execute it,” including “someone under contract
13
with the United States.” The certificate of service states that Carolyn Jusay, a paralegal in the Asset
14
Forfeiture Unit of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, served the
15
relevant documents in this case via United States certified mail and regular U.S. mail upon the
16
Potential Claimants’ last known addresseses. See Certificate of Service, ECF No. 7. Based on the
17
foregoing, service was in compliance with Supplemental Rule G(3).
18
2. Supplemental Rule G(4)
19
Supplemental Rule G(4) requires both notice by publication and notice to known potential
20
claimants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4)(a)-(b). First, with respect to notice by publication, Rule
21
G(4)(a) provides that “[a] judgment of forfeiture may be entered only if the government has
22
published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the
23
court orders,” and requires that a published notice: “(A) describe the property with reasonable
24
particularity; (B) state the times under Rule G(5) to file a claim and to answer; and (C) name the
25
government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. G(4)(a)(i)-(ii). Rule
26
G(4) further provides the notice may be published by “posting a notice on an official internet
27
government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4)(a)(iv).
28
To demonstrate compliance with the published notice requirement, the United States has filed a
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
6
1
“Declaration of Publication” that states the United States published notice of the action on an official
2
government website (www.forfeiture.gov), where it remained for at least 30 consecutive days
3
beginning May 8, 2014. See ECF. No. 11. The published notice described the property to be seized
4
as “$23,540 U.S. Currency (14-USP-000775) which was seized from Keith Armstrong on November
5
26, 2013 at 1675 7th Street, located in Oakland, CA.” Id. The published notice also noted that
6
“[a]ny person claiming a legal interest in the Defendant Property must file a verified Claim with the
7
court within 60 days from the first date of publication (May 8, 2014),” and named Assistant United
8
States Attorney Patricia Kenney as the government attorney to be served. This notice complies with
9
the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(4)(a).
10
Next, with respect to notice to known potential claimants, Rule (G)(4)(b) requires the
government to “send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
appears to be a potential claimant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4)(b)(i). The notice must state “(A) the
13
date when the notice is sent; (B) a deadline for filing a claim, at least 35 days after the notice is sent;
14
(C) that an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 21 days after filing the
15
claim; and (D) the name of the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.” Id. at
16
G(4)(b)(ii).
17
The Notice of Forfeiture was served on the Potential Claimants along with the Complaint and
18
Arrest Warrant. See ECF No. 5. The Notice of Forfeiture: (A) is dated May 6, 2014, and was
19
served on May 9, 2014; (B) states that the deadline for filing a claim is at least thirty-five days after
20
the notice is sent; (C) states that an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal
21
Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within 21 days after filing a claim; and (D) identifies
22
Assistant United States Attorney Patricia J. Kenney as the government attorney to be served.
23
Therefore, the United States has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Supplemental
24
Rule G(4)(b).
25
26
Accordingly, notice by publication and notice to known compliance with Supplemental Rule
G(4).
27
CONCLUSION
28
For the reasons stated above, the United States’ Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
7
1
This disposes of ECF No. 15.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated: September 18, 2014
4
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 14-02063 LB
ORDER
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?