United States of America v. Approximately $7,041.73 seized from Bank of America Checking Account #375008753246 held in the name of Abyssinia Love Knot Physical Therapy, LLC et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting #52 government's Motion to Stay civil forfeiture case until 4/23/17 and Striking documents #29 and #30 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-10314
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
APPROXIMATELY $7,041.73 SEIZED
FROM BANK OF AMERICA CHECKING
ACCOUNT #375008753246 HELD
IN THE NAME OF ABYSSINIA LOVE
KNOT PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC., et al.,
Defendant in Rem.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
TO STAY CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE [DOC. 52]
UNTIL APRIL 23, 2017 AND STRIKING DOCS. 29 AND 30
This matter comes before the court on the government’s motion to
stay this civil forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g) until its
companion criminal case, United States v. Shirley Douglas, et al., 2:16-cr20436-DML-APP (E.D. Mich. Jun. 16, 2016), is resolved and until such time
the government concludes its criminal investigation of the remaining
individuals listed in the Complaint. A stay was previously entered upon
stipulation for six months, expiring on October 6, 2016. The United States
requests an extension of the stay because (1) to allow civil discovery to
proceed in this case will adversely affect the ability of the United States to
1

conduct the prosecution of the related criminal case; (2) a stay is the
appropriate remedy for balancing the countervailing interests of the
interested entities; and (3) claimants should not be permitted to use civil
discovery to circumvent the criminal discovery process.
Objections to the request for stay were filed by only two claimants,
Atul C. Shah and Yogina A. Shah. Claimant Malik Fuqua and Defendants
in Rem Account Numbers xxxx472 and xxxx842 consented to the
requested continuation of the stay. None of the other claimants voiced any
opposition to the pending motion to stay.
18 U.S.C. § 981(g) sets forth when the government can obtain a stay:
Upon the motion of the United States, the court
shall stay the civil forfeiture proceedings if the court
determines that civil discovery will adversely affect
the ability of the Government to conduct a related
criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related
criminal case.
In this case, the civil forfeiture matter and the criminal case are inextricably
related. The indictment describes an extensive health care fraud and drug
distribution scheme, with the defendants committing fraud against the
United States government from August 2009 through June 2016. The
indictment further describes how the criminal defendants and others
conspired to obtain controlled substances. The verified complaint in the
civil action alleges the same set of facts as grounds for the forfeiture. The

government contends that proving both cases will involve the same
witnesses and similar documents and will deal with the same set of
operative facts and circumstances. The government points out that some
of the accounts subject to forfeiture in the criminal indictment are also
defendants in rem in the civil forfeiture case, indicating that the interest held
by claimants in those properties will likely be resolved in the criminal case.
No objections have been raised on the issue of whether there is a related
criminal case. The court finds that the pending criminal case is a “related
criminal case” to this civil matter for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 981(g).
To grant a stay, the court must also find that civil discovery will
adversely affect the related criminal case. The United States argues that it
will be adversely impacted by full civil discovery during the pendency of a
related criminal proceeding because claimants will have the ability to seek
much broader discovery than would be allowed in the criminal case. Again,
no objections have been raised to the government’s argument that
commencing civil discovery will compromise both the ongoing investigation
and the pending criminal trial. The court concludes that the government
has shown likely prejudice to the criminal proceedings if civil discovery is
permitted to go forward at this time.
Atul and Yogina Shah oppose a stay of the civil forfeiture action
3

because Dr. Atul Shah voluntarily surrendered his DEA license on August
18, 2015 and has not been able to practice medicine on a full-time basis
since that time. The government seized two of the Shah’s accounts with
financial institutions, $98,936.10 from a Bank of America Money Market
Account and $10,732.49 from a Bank of America Checking Account. The
Shahs refer to their unsuccessful efforts to resolve the criminal
investigation, and state that the money which was seized represents a
considerable sum to the Shah family.
The government responds that they have taken reasonable efforts to
ensure that the only funds that remain seized are those directly traceable to
the drug distribution scheme underlying the criminal investigation and
prosecution. Since the initial seizure of funds, the government returned
$26,814.28 to the Shahs on February 10, 2016. As for the status of the
criminal investigation, the government responds that trial in the criminal
case is scheduled to commence on January 24, 2017. At the conclusion of
the trial, the government believes it will be in a better position to advise the
court as to the status of the related criminal investigation.
The court grants a stay of the civil forfeiture action for a period of five
months, until April 23, 2017. The government is required to provide an
updated status report on or before that date.

The government has brought two instances of scrivener’s error in the
electronic court file to the court’s attention. Docket numbers 29 and 30
should be stricken by the clerk due to the fact that their titles and content
do not match, and that the error has been rectified by the filing of docket
numbers 32 and 33.
So ordered.

s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 28, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record
on November 28, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Case Manager

5