United States of America v. Real Property Located at 120 Teriwood Street, Fern Park, Florida 32730 et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and considered the objections filed by the Government. With the exception of one non-material issue, the Court finds the analysis of the R&R to be correct and the objections of the Government to be unpersuasive. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to vacate the notation of default as to 12o" Teriwoo d Street and 163 Fallwood Street until such time as the Government has effected proper service upon the property owners. The Court also grants the Government's motion to withdraw the entry of default as to 115 Eastwind Lane. Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 3/27/2018. (Fernandez, Erica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-X

4i m 27 2018 -k

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

-againstREAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

TERIWOOD STREET,FERN PARK,FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

32730, REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115

I6-CV-6101 (CBA)
(RER)

EASTWIND STREET,FERN PARK,FLORIDA
32730, and REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

163 FALL WOOD STREET,FERN PARK,
FLORIDA 32730,
Defendants.

AMON,United States Distriet Judge:

On November 14, 2016, the United States of America (the "Government") commenced

this civil forfeiture action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A) and (C) against three parcels of
real property located in Fern Park, Florida: 120 Teriwood Street, 115 Eastwind Lane, and 163

Fallwood Street (collectively, the "Properties"). (D.E.# 1 ("Complaint" or "Compl.").) On April
6,2017,the Government moved for a defaultjudgment pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure

55. (D.E. # 6.) This Court referred the motion to the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, for Report and Recommendation. (D.E. dated Apr. 10, 2017.)

Magistrate Judge Reyes recommended that the Government's motion for defaultjudgment
be denied and that the default be vacated because the Government failed to serve the complaint on
the property owners in a manner that comported with any method of service prescribed by Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively. New York or Florida law. (D.E. # 8
("R&R")at 2-5.) After several extensions oftime were granted,(D.E. ## 9-10),the Government

filed timely objections to the R&R,(see D.E. #12 ("Obj.")). The Government subsequently

withdrew its motion for defaultjudgment as to the property located at 115 Eastwind Lane,(D.E.#
11), but pressed forward with its objections to the R&R as to the other two properties, tsee Obj.).
The Court has conducted a de novo review ofthe R&R and considered the objections filed

by the Government. With the exception ofone non-material issue, the Court finds the analysis of
the R&R to be correct and the objections of the Government to be unpersuasive.' Therefore, the
Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to vacate the notation of default as to 120 Teriwood Street and 163 Fallwood Street until

such time as the Government has effected proper service upon the property owners. The Court
also grants the Government's motion to withdraw the entry of default as to 115 Eastwind Lane.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March*^ 2018

Brooklyn, New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon

Gafol Bagley i^non
United States DistricWudge

'The Government's objection to the R&R's discussion of personal jurisdiction is well-founded.
Although not material to the outcome, the R&R erred in its discussion ofjurisdiction in terms of personal
jurisdiction because principles of personal jurisdiction are not implicated in this case. Instead, the Court
has only in rem jurisdiction over the Properties. See United States v. Bonventre. 720 F.3d 126,132(2d
Cir. 2013)(recognizing that civil forfeiture proceeding represents action in reml: United States v. Four
Parcels of Real Prop, in Greene & Tuscaloosa Ctvs. in State of Ala.. 941 F.2d 1428, 1435(11th Cir.
1991)("[A] civil forfeiture action is not an action in personam against the claimant ofthe property; rather,
it is an action in rem against the property itselfi.]").