Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. 2010 MERCEDES-BENZ CLS550, 2:12-CV-01631-MCE-DAD. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20121017a85 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. The United States of America and claimant Volen Properties 5, LLC, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that a stay is appropriate in the above-entitled action, and request that the Court enter an order staying further proceedings until February 1, 2013. The basis for the proposed stay is the related criminal action against three individuals charged with various fraud and money laun
More

STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

The United States of America and claimant Volen Properties 5, LLC, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that a stay is appropriate in the above-entitled action, and request that the Court enter an order staying further proceedings until February 1, 2013. The basis for the proposed stay is the related criminal action against three individuals charged with various fraud and money laundering crimes, United States v. Volen, et al., Case No. 2:12-CR-00294-MCE.

1. Claimant Volen Properties 5, LLC, through manager Bart Volen, filed a claim to the $1,931,118.00 interest in the $2,437,500.00 promissory note secured by real property located on Placer Corporate Drive, Rocklin, California.

2. The claimant will file a response to the complaint within twenty-one days of the lifting of the stay.1

3. No other claimants have appeared in this action.

4. The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i).

5. To date, three individuals, including Bart Volen, have been charged with federal criminal crimes related to a fraud against the United Auburn Indian Community of Auburn, California, United States v. Volen, et al., Case No. 2:12-CR-00294-MCE. It is the United States' position that the statute of limitations has not expired on potential criminal charges relating to the fraud. The United States intends to depose those charged with crimes connected to the fraud. If discovery proceeds at this time, these individuals, or some of them, will be placed in the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the claims they filed with this court.

6. In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to prepare for the criminal trial and/or further investigate the alleged underlying criminal conduct.

7. The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time could have potential adverse effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove their claims to the defendant assets and to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that these matters be stayed until February 1, 2013, in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal case and will advise the court whether a further stay is appropriate.

8. For good cause shown, any party to this stipulation may seek relief from this stay prior to February 1, 2013.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed until February 1, 2013. On or before that date, the parties will advise the Court whether a further stay is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The parties previously stipulated to extend the time to respond to the complaint to October 11, 2012. See ECF No. 16. This stipulation supersedes that agreement; the active response deadline is controlled by paragraph two of this stipulation.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer