Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. APPROXIMTELY $700.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 1:13-CV-01064-SAB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140915334 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2014
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds: 1. This is a civil forfeiture action against approximately $700.00 in U.S. Currency, approximately $10,474.21 in U.S. Currency seized from Wells Fargo Bank account number 7064503779, and approximately $3,236.05 in U.S. Currency seized from Bank of the West account number 028561662 (collectively hereafter "defendant funds"). The defendant 2. The Verifie
More

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge.

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:

1. This is a civil forfeiture action against approximately $700.00 in U.S. Currency, approximately $10,474.21 in U.S. Currency seized from Wells Fargo Bank account number 7064503779, and approximately $3,236.05 in U.S. Currency seized from Bank of the West account number 028561662 (collectively hereafter "defendant funds"). The defendant

2. The Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem ("Complaint") was filed on July 11, 2013, alleging that said defendant funds are subject to forfeiture to the United States of America pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

3. On August 28, 2013, the Clerk issued a Warrant for Arrest for the defendant funds. The warrant was executed on September 4, 2013 and the warrant return was filed on October 11, 2013.

4. Beginning on November 23, 2013, and continuing for at least 30 consecutive days, the United States published notice of this action on the official government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov. A Declaration of Publication was filed with the Court on July 25, 2014.

5. In addition to the public notice on the official internet government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov, direct notice or attempted direct notice was given to the following individuals:

a. Jorge Soto

b. Rosalinda Soto

c. Victor M. Perez, attorney

6. On September 27, 2013, Jorge Soto and Rosalinda Soto filed verified answers. To date, no other parties have filed claims or answers in this matter, and the time in which any person or entity may file a claim and answer has expired.

Based on the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture entered into by and between the parties to this action, and incorporates it by reference herein.

2. That judgment is hereby entered against Claimant Jorge Soto, Claimant Rosalinda Soto and, and all other potential claimants who have not filed claims in this action.

3. Upon entry of the Final Judgment of Forfeiture herein, $10,037.31 of the defendant funds including any interest that has accrued on the entire amount of defendant funds, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) to be disposed of according to law.

4. Within 90 days of entry of the Final Judgment of Forfeiture herein or 90 days after Claimants have provided the necessary electronic funds transfer paperwork—whichever is later, $4,372.95 of the defendant funds shall be returned to Claimants through their attorney Victor M. Perez, The Perez Law Firm, 1304 W. Center Ave., Visalia, CA 93291, (559) 625-2626.

5. The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and all other public entities, their servants, agents, and employees, are released from any and all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure, arrest, or forfeiture of the defendant funds. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of said seizure, arrest, or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. The parties to this agreement agree to waive the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.

6. That pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and the allegations set forth in the Complaint filed on July 11, 2013, the Court finds that no party substantially prevailed within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2465, that there was probable cause for arrest and seizure of the defendant vehicle and defendant funds, and for the commencement and prosecution of this forfeiture action, and a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 shall be entered accordingly.

7. All parties are to bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

8. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, and this Final Judgment of Forfeiture.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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