Filed: Jun. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2012
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR DECREE OF FORFEITURE 1 RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and for Decree of Forfeiture, filed on June 13, 2012 ("Motion"). The Motion was brought pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(4), and Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Mari
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR DECREE OF FORFEITURE 1 RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and for Decree of Forfeiture, filed on June 13, 2012 ("Motion"). The Motion was brought pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(4), and Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Marit..
More
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR DECREE OF FORFEITURE1
RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and for Decree of Forfeiture, filed on June 13, 2012 ("Motion"). The Motion was brought pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4), and Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. After carefully reviewing the pleadings and relevant legal authority, the Court FINDS that the required notice has been given and the time to file a verified claim has expired and RECOMMENDS the entry of default judgment and decree of forfeiture.
Specifically, the Court FINDS:
1. That process was duly issued in this case and that the above-captioned defendant property was seized by the United States Marshals Service pursuant to said process;
2. That no entitled person or entity has filed any claim or answer within the time fixed by law;
3. That on June 12, 2012, default was entered against any and all persons and entities claiming or having any interest in the defendant property, including Michael M.C. Hong (Docket No. 16-3); and
4. That the allegations contained in the Complaint for Forfeiture (Docket No. 1) are taken as admitted.
Based upon the above findings, and the Court RECOMMENDS:
1. Default judgment be entered against the defendant property;
2. All persons claiming any right, title or interest in or to the defendant property be held in default, including Michael M.C. Hong;
3. The defendant property be forfeited to the United States of America; and
4. The United States Marshals Service be directed to dispose of the above-captioned defendant property in accordance with law.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
