United States of America v. $9,980 in U.S. Currency

Filing 26

ORDER granting 19 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 7/15/2019. (RMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

United States of America,

File No. 18-cv-1325 (ECT/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
$9,980 in U.S. Currency,
Defendant,
and
Michael Paul McDonough,
Claimant.
________________________________________________________________________
The United States has filed a motion seeking: (1) a default judgment against all
unknown persons and entities having an interest in the Defendant Currency for failure to
file a claim to the Defendant Currency and answer to the Verified Complaint for
Forfeiture In Rem; and (2) an order forfeiting the entire amount of the Defendant
Currency to the United States. Based on all the files and proceedings in this action, the
Court finds as follows:
1.

On May 14, 2018, the government filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture

In Rem with verification by Jeffrey N. Trevino, Task Force Officer, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration (“Verified Complaint” or “Verified Compl.”). See ECF
No. 1; see also Rule G(2)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the “Supplemental Rules” or “Supp. R.”).

2.

The Verified Complaint alleges, and the Court finds, that the Court

possesses subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 because this is an action
commenced by the United States and under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a) because this is an action
for forfeiture. See Verified Compl. ¶ 3; Supp. R. G(2)(b). The Verified Complaint
further alleges, and the Court finds, that the Court possesses in rem jurisdiction over the
Defendant Currency under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b), see Verified Compl. ¶ 4; Supp. R.
G(2)(b), and that venue is proper in the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335(b)(1) because the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this
District and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395 because the Defendant Currency is located in
this District, see Verified Compl. ¶ 5; Supp. R. G(2)(b).
3.

The Verified Complaint describes the subject property with reasonable

particularity, and identifies both the location where the seizure occurred and the location
of the Defendant Currency when the action was filed. See Supp. R. G(2)(c)-(d). In
particular, the Verified Complaint describes the subject property as “$9,980 in U.S.
Currency seized from Michael Paul McDonough at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport (‘MSP’) on November 1, 2017” and states that the Defendant Currency was in
custody of the U.S. Marshals Service in this District. Verified Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5.
4.

The government sought forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because, it

alleges, the Defendant Currency “was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange
for a controlled substance, constitutes proceeds traceable to such an exchange, or was
used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.”
Verified Compl. ¶¶ 54–55; Supp. R. G(2)(e). The Court concludes, based upon the facts
2

alleged in the Verified Complaint, together with the facts alleged and deemed admitted
through default in the related case of United States v. $6,900 in U.S. Currency, No. 18cv-0028 (JNE/TNL) (D. Minn.) (the “Bowlds Forfeiture Action”), and the forfeiture
order entered in that related action [Bowlds Forfeiture Action ECF No. 38], the
government has stated sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the
government would be able to meet its burden at trial, see generally Am. Verified Compl.
¶¶ 7–21; Supp. R. G(2)(f).
5.

A Warrant of Arrest and Notice In Rem was issued on May 22, 2018,

directing the United States Marshals Service to arrest the Defendant Currency. ECF No.
15 at 2–4; Supp. R. G(3)(b)(i). The warrant was returned executed on May 17, 2019.
ECF No. 15 at 1; Supp. R. G(3)(c).
6.

On June 1, 2018, McDonough filed a verified statement of interest and

answer, asserting that he was the owner of the Defendant Currency. See generally ECF
No. 3 and ¶ 1. The government avers that it did not serve McDonough with a Notice of
Forfeiture in this case, which Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) would normally require,
because he had already filed his verified statement of interest answer, thereby
demonstrating that he had actual knowledge of this proceeding. See Supp. R. G(4)(b)(v)
(excusing the sending of notice where potential claimant has actual notice).
7.

Pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C), the U.S. Attorney’s Office

posted a Notice of Forfeiture on an official government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov)
for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on February 23, 2019. Baune Decl. ¶ 6; Decl.
of Publication [ECF No. 14]; see also Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv).
3

That published notice

satisfied the content requirements of Supp. R. G(4)(a)(ii).

See Attachment 1 to

Declaration of Publication [ECF No. 14-1] (describing the property with reasonable
particularity, stating the times under Supplemental Rule G(5) to file a verified claim and
to answer, and naming the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer).
8.

No one other than McDonough has filed a verified claim or answer, and the

time for filing a claim and answer has expired under Supplemental Rule G(5). Baune
Decl. ¶ 7.
9.

McDonough entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the government,

in which he agreed to withdraw his claim to the Defendant Currency to permit the entire
amount to be forfeited to the United States. Stipulation of Settlement 2 [ECF No. 16].
10.

The clerk has entered a default. ECF No. 23; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

11.

The government avers that, upon information and belief, McDonough is not

an infant or incompetent person, and avers further that the Department of Defense
Manpower Data Center does not indicate that he is in the military service or the armed
forces of the United States of America or other friendly powers. Baune Decl. ¶ 5.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Motion of the United States for a default judgment and final order of

forfeiture [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED;
2.

A default judgment is entered against all unknown persons and entities

having an interest in the Defendant Currency for failure to file a claim and an answer to
the First Amended Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem as required by 18 U.S.C.

4

§ 983(a)(4)(A) and (B), and Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions; and
3.

The Defendant Currency is FORFEITED to the United States pursuant to

21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) for disposition in accordance with law.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 15, 2019

s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court

5