Filed: Jun. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2014
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, the court finds: 1. This is a civil action in rem brought Approximately $48,091.56 in U.S. Currency ("defendant currency"), which was seized on or about March 5, 2013. 2. A Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem ("Complaint") was filed on August 15, 2013, alleging that said defendant currency is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, the court finds: 1. This is a civil action in rem brought Approximately $48,091.56 in U.S. Currency ("defendant currency"), which was seized on or about March 5, 2013. 2. A Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem ("Complaint") was filed on August 15, 2013, alleging that said defendant currency is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. ..
More
FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture, the court finds:
1. This is a civil action in rem brought Approximately $48,091.56 in U.S. Currency ("defendant currency"), which was seized on or about March 5, 2013.
2. A Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem ("Complaint") was filed on August 15, 2013, alleging that said defendant currency is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
3. On August 22, 2013, the Clerk issued a Warrant for Arrest for the defendant currency, and that warrant was duly executed on August 26, 2013.
4. Beginning on August 21, 2013, for at least 30 consecutive days, the United States published Notice of the Forfeiture Action on the official internet government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov. A Declaration of Publication was filed on September 23, 2013.
5. In addition to the public notice on the official internet government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov, actual notice or attempted notice was given to the following individual(s): James Keith McCollum.
6. Claimant James Keith McCollum filed an answer alleging an interest in the defendant currency on December 17, 2013. 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:
7. The court adopts the Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture entered into by and between the parties to this action insofar as consistent with this order.
8. Judgment is hereby entered against claimant James Keith McCollum and all other potential claimants who have not filed claims in this action.
9. All right, title, and interest of James Keith McCollum in the Approximately $48,091.56 in U.S. Currency, together with any interest that may have accrued, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), to be disposed of according to law.
10. That the United States 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 currency. 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. James Keith McCollum waives the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.
11. Claimant James Keith McCollum waives any and all claim or right to interest that may have accrued on the defendant currency.
12. All parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.
13. The court, in its discretion, declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); cf. Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for state courts. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382.
SO ORDERED.
