United States of America v. $26,400.00 in United States Currency

Filing 22

ORDER granting Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 15) filed by Claimant's counsel, Lawrence G. Whelan. The United States' 21 Oral Motion to strike Mr. Cardozo's Verified Claim (Filing No.9) and Mr. Cardozo's Answer (Filing No. 12) is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (ADB)

•

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

OF' THE CLERK
8: 12:€R 13 71..---~------1

cv

vs.
ORDER

$26,400.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.

NOW ON THIS 28 th day of December, 2012, this matter comes on before the Court upon
the Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 15) filed by Claimant's counsel, Lawrence G. Whelan.
Mr. Whelan is present with co-counsel, Dennis G. Whelan. The Plaintiff is represented by
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy A. Svoboda. During the hearing, Ms. Svoboda moved to strike
Claimant's Verified Claim (Filing No.9) and Claimant's Answer (Filing No. 12).
The Court, being duly advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1.

By Order dated December 3,2012 (Filing No. 16), this Court set Mr. Whelan's

Motion to Withdraw for hearing and directed Claimant, Noel Natan Cardozo, to attend said
hearing. Mr. Cardozo was not present at said hearing.
2.

The Court had also directed Mr. Whelan to provide Mr. Cardozo notice oftoday's

hearing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Further, Mr. Whelan was directed to file a
certificate of service demonstrating compliance with this directive. Today, the Court received
Exhibit No's. 101, 102, 103, and 104 evidencing Mr. Whelan's attempts to comply with the
Court's directive. Specifically, the exhibits demonstrate Mr. Whelan did post, by certified mail,

.

. ..

return receipt requested, a copy of the Court's December 3, 2012, Order; however, that letter is
sitting at a post office location, waiting to be picked up by Mr. Cardozo.
3.

The Court grants Mr. Whelan's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Claimant, Joel

Natan Cardozo. The United States orally moved to strike Mr. Cardozo's Verified Claim (Filing
No.9) and Mr. Cardozo's Answer (Filing No. 12). The motion was made pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(a)(iii). That motion is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

F.A. GO

2