United States of America v. 97-99 New Leicester Highway, Asheville, North Carolina et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Strike and STRIKES the Claim of Shirley M. Gardner 5 for failure to comply with requirements of Rule G. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 07/03/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
)
97-99 NEW LEICESTER HIGHWAY, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Strike [# 30].
Shirley M. Gardner submitted a claim for the Defendant Property on February 5,
2014. Subsequently, Claimant Gardner filed a motion requesting an enlargement
of time to answer, which the Court granted. (Order, Mar. 7, 2014.) Pursuant to
the Court’s Order, Claimant Gardner had until April 7, 2014, to file her answer.
Claimant Gardner, however, failed to file an answer and has taken no action in
these proceedings since the entry of the Court’s March 7, 2014, Order.
Accordingly, the Government moves to strike the claim of Claimant Gardner.
A claimant must serve and file an answer to a complaint or a Rule 12 motion
within twenty-one days of filing a claim. Fed. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(5)(b). The
Supplemental Rules also provide that the Government may move to strike a claim

or answer at any time prior trial where a claimant fails to comply with Rule G(5).
Fed. Civ. P. Sup. R. G(8)(c)(i)(A). Courts strictly adhere to these requirements and
will strike a claim if a claimant fails to file a timely answer. See e.g., United States
v. 40 Acres of Real Prop., 629 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1273–74 (S.D. Ala. 2009); United
States v. $27,601.00 in United States Currency, No. 09–cv6281L, 2011 WL
3296170, at *1–2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2011).
Claimant has had ample time to file an answer in this case. Moreover, she
was aware of her obligation to file an answer because she filed a Motion for
Extension of Time requesting additional time to do so. Despite the Court granting
this motion and setting a new deadline for Claimant to file her answer, Claimant
failed to comply with the Court’s Order, has not filed an answer, and has taken no
action in this case in several months. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
Government’s motion [# 30] and STRIKES the Claim of Shirley M. Gardner [# 5]
for failure to comply with requirements of Rule G.

Signed: July 3, 2014