U.S. v. Lonich, 14-cr-00139-SI-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181002g43
Visitors: 27
Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING 101 HOUSECO'S PETITION CHALLENGING FORFEITURE Re: Dkt. No. 777 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On September 28, 2018, the Court held a hearing on 101 Houseco's petition in opposition to the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. 101 Houseco's petition raises the same arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected in the litigation regarding the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. For the reasons set forth in the Court's prior order, the Court finds that defen
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING 101 HOUSECO'S PETITION CHALLENGING FORFEITURE Re: Dkt. No. 777 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On September 28, 2018, the Court held a hearing on 101 Houseco's petition in opposition to the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. 101 Houseco's petition raises the same arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected in the litigation regarding the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. For the reasons set forth in the Court's prior order, the Court finds that defend..
More
ORDER DISMISSING 101 HOUSECO'S PETITION CHALLENGING FORFEITURE
Re: Dkt. No. 777
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On September 28, 2018, the Court held a hearing on 101 Houseco's petition in opposition to the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. 101 Houseco's petition raises the same arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected in the litigation regarding the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East. For the reasons set forth in the Court's prior order, the Court finds that defendant Lonich has a forfeitable interest in Park Lane Villas East and that 101 Houseco, LLC does not have a valid interest in that property. See generally Dkt. No. 745. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 101 Houseco's petition challenging the forfeiture.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
