Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. On December 19, 2014, the government filed a "Notice of Related Cases" in which it states: The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorney, and pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 123, hereby gives notice that the above-entitled actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 because the civil forfeiture action and the criminal action arise from the same law enforcement investigation and, therefore
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. On December 19, 2014, the government filed a "Notice of Related Cases" in which it states: The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorney, and pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 123, hereby gives notice that the above-entitled actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 because the civil forfeiture action and the criminal action arise from the same law enforcement investigation and, therefore,..
More
RELATED CASE ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
On December 19, 2014, the government filed a "Notice of Related Cases" in which it states:
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorney, and pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 123, hereby gives notice that the above-entitled actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 because the civil forfeiture action and the criminal action arise from the same law enforcement investigation and, therefore, involve substantially the same events, transactions, and parties. Particularly, the related criminal action alleges that Ashley Chang and Guo Neng Ma conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana in the Eastern District of California from December 2013 to October 2014. The instant civil forfeiture complaint alleges that the defendant properties are forfeitable to the United States based on its connection to Chang's marijuana trafficking. Accordingly, the civil forfeiture case and the related criminal action create an identity of issues and are likely to entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the two cases be assigned to a single district judge.
(Notice of Related Cases, ECF No. 23.)
Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. Therefore, action No. 2:14-CV-02941 is reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and for all further proceedings, and any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall show the initials "GEB-DAD."
Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in action No. 2:14-cv-02941 before the undersigned judge on May 4, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior.1
The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.
FootNotes
1. The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.
