STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay this action pending resolution of a related criminal matter. (ECF No. 29.) The matter was found suitable for decision without oral argument and was taken under submission.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigations investigated the business activities of Marie Sherrill and her daughter, Kristina Redwine-Fox. (Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Sherrill advertised herself as a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Financial Planner when she is neither. (
On April 18, 2013, $120,772.00 was seized from 2126 W. Nancy in Porterville, California; and $21,770.00 was seized from 1254 North Birch Street in Porterville, California. (
On September 9, 2015, Kristina Redwine-Fox filed a claim for return of the seized property. (ECF No. 23.) On September 10, 2015, Marie Sherrill filed a claim for the return of the seized property. (ECF No. 24.) On September 30, 2015, Marie Sherrill filed an answer. (ECF No. 27.) On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay these civil forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g). (ECF No. 29.) No opposition to the motion has been filed. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, ECF No. 1.)
The civil asset forfeiture statute provides that "[u]pon the motion of the United States, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case." 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). The statute only requires the Court to determine whether civil discovery in the action will interfere with a related criminal action.
Plaintiff states that the criminal action of
The statute does not require a particularized showing of prejudice or a specific harm that would result without the imposition of the requested stay.
Claimant Marie Sherrill is currently being prosecuted for alleged criminal activity which led to the seizure of the currency at issue in this action. (Decl. of Jeffrey A. Spivak ¶ 2, ECF No. 29.) The civil complaint in this action alleges that the owners of the seized property were engaged in the same criminal activities alleged in the criminal prosecution. Plaintiff contends that the United States' ability to prosecute the criminal action would be adversely affected if discovery in this action were allowed because Plaintiff would be required to disclose documents and evidence related to the criminal prosecution. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that discovery in this action would require the Government to provide the testimony of witnesses who are involved in the criminal prosecution.
The Court finds that the overlapping facts and circumstances of these two cases would adversely affect the Government's ability to prosecute the related criminal action if discovery in this action was allowed to proceed. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the motion to stay this action be granted.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to stay this action be GRANTED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.