United States of America v. Approximately $90,020 in Funds

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice to refiling the motion with sufficient evidence that direct notice was provided as required by Rule G(4)(b). Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/8/2019. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00064-RJC-DSC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $90,020 IN FUNDS
)
SEIZED DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP OF )
RICARDO DIAZ AND JOSE GUADELUPE )
RODRIGUEZ,
)
)
Defendant.
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the United States of America’s
Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 13.)
On February 13, 2017, the United States (“Government”) filed a Complaint for
Forfeiture in rem against the defendant-property captioned above. (Doc. No. 1.) The
Complaint alleged that the property is proceeds of drug trafficking and/or was used
to facilitate drug trafficking. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 5.) The Complaint further alleged that
the following persons may have or claim an interest in the defendant-property: Jose
Rodriguez and Ricardo Diaz c/o Steven T. Meier, PLLC. (Doc. No. 1, at 5.)
Beginning on February 17, 2017 and continuing for thirty days thereafter, the
Government provided Notice by Publication of this action pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule G(4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. (Doc. No. 4.)
In addition to notice by publication, Rule G(4)(b) requires that the Government

send direct notice of the action and a copy of the Complaint to potential claimants.
The record is devoid of any evidence that the Government provided direct notice of
this action and a copy of the Complaint to Jose Rodriguez and Ricardo Diaz, the
potential claimants identified in the Complaint. Instead, the Government merely
asserts in its Motion for Default Judgment that such direct notice was provided.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Default
Judgment, (Doc. No. 13), is DENIED without prejudice to refiling the motion with
sufficient evidence that direct notice was provided as required by Rule G(4)(b).

Signed: October 8, 2019

2