United States of America v. Approximately $8,651 in Funds
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/17/2017. (thh)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00145-MR-DLH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $8,651 IN FUNDS )
SEIZED INCIDENT TO THE ARREST )
OF CHRISTOPHER MARK ERWIN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for
Default Judgment [Doc. 8].
On June 9, 2017, the Government initiated this civil forfeiture action
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881 against the
defendant property.
[Doc. 1].
As grounds for forfeiture, the Verified
Complaint alleges in part that the defendant property was “seized incident to
the arrest of Christopher Mark Erwin and constitutes “proceeds of and/or was
used to facilitate drug trafficking crimes.” [Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6].
The Government posted notice of this civil forfeiture action for a period
of 30 consecutive days, beginning on June 2, 2017, as required by Rule
G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims
and Asset Forfeiture Actions.
[Doc. 5].
Additionally, the Government
provided direct notice to “Mr. Mark Erwin, c/o Stanley D. Young, Esq., 68
North Market Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.” [See Doc. 6]. On July
13, 2017, Mark Edward Erwin filed a Notice, withdrawing his interest in the
defendant property and expressly abandoning any claim or interest he had
in such property. [Doc. 4]. On September 19, 2017, the Government filed
the present motion for a default judgment against all persons and entities.
[Doc. 8].
Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture requires that the Government “send notice of
the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably
appears to be a potential claimant ….” Here, the Government alleges that
the defendant property was seized from, and incident to the arrest of, one
Christopher Mark Erwin. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 7]. The Government did not, however,
provide any direct notice to Christopher Mark Erwin, as required by Rule
G(4)(b)(i). Rather, it provided direct notice only to “Mr. Mark Erwin, c/o
Stanley D. Young.”
It is unclear from the record what Mark Erwin’s
relationship to this matter is. In any event, however, the Government failed
to provide direct notice to a potential claimant, that being the person from
2
whom the defendant property was directly seized.
Accordingly, the
Government’s motion for default judgment is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for
Default Judgment [Doc. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 17, 2017
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?