Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Real Property Located at 8744 Vytina Drive, 2:18-CV-00825-KJM-CKD. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180808846 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The United States and Claimants Zhoubing Yang, PS Funding, Inc., Northern California Mortgage Fund XII, LLC, Zun Jin Chen, Mei Hui Chen, Min Hui Jiang, Ketong Cai, Xiuqin Lin, Dong Li, Xuehong Yang, East West Bank and Lone Oak Fund, LLC, through their respective counsel, and Larry R. Blanchard and Carol Blanchard, as Trustees of the Blanchard Family Trust, Kasey Olin, and Joseph Ciranni, appearing pro
More

STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER

The United States and Claimants Zhoubing Yang, PS Funding, Inc., Northern California Mortgage Fund XII, LLC, Zun Jin Chen, Mei Hui Chen, Min Hui Jiang, Ketong Cai, Xiuqin Lin, Dong Li, Xuehong Yang, East West Bank and Lone Oak Fund, LLC, through their respective counsel, and Larry R. Blanchard and Carol Blanchard, as Trustees of the Blanchard Family Trust, Kasey Olin, and Joseph Ciranni, appearing pro per, hereby stipulate that a stay is necessary in the above-entitled action and request that the Court enter an order staying all further proceedings until the resolution of the related criminal cases, United States v. Leonard Yang, et al., Case 2:16-CR-00189-KJM and United States v. Xiu Ping Li, et al., Case No. 2:17-CR-00136-KJM, and ongoing criminal investigation into marijuana grows at the defendant properties.

1. This is a forfeiture in rem action against seven properties pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) because they were allegedly used and intended to be used to commit or facilitate violations of federal drug laws:

a. Real Property located at 8744 Vytina Drive in Elk Grove, California, the "Defendant Vytina Drive." Zhoubang Yang has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Vytina Drive. PS Funding, Inc. filed a claim asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Vytina Drive. b. Real Property located at 6439 Valley Hi Drive in Sacramento, California, the "Defendant Valley Hi Drive." Mei Hui Chen has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Valley Hi Drive. No other party has filed a claim asserting an interest in defendant Valley Hi Drive. c. Real Property located at 8613 Orison Court in Elk Grove, California, the "Defendant Orison Court." Min Hui Jiang has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Orison Court. Lone Oak Fund, LLC filed a claim asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Orison Court. d. Real Property located at 4630 Country Scene Way in Sacramento, California, the "Defendant Country Scene Way." Xuehong Yang has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Country Scene Way. Larry R. Blanchard and Carol Blanchard, Trustees of the Blanchard Family Trust, filed claims asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Country Scene Way. e. Real Property located at 8139 Valley Green Drive in Sacramento, California, the "Defendant Valley Green Drive." Ketong Cai and Xiuqin Lin have filed claims asserting an ownership interest in defendant Valley Green Drive. East West Bank filed a claim asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Valley Green Drive. f. Real Property located at 3975 Deer Cross Way in Sacramento, California, the "Defendant Deer Cross Way." Dong Li has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Deer Cross Way. Kasey Olin and Joseph Ciranni filed claims asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Deer Cross Way. g. Real Property located at 4713 Laguna West Way in Elk Grove, California, the "Defendant Laguna West Way." Zun Jin Chen has filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in defendant Laguna West Way. Northern California Mortgage Fund XII, LLC filed a claim asserting a lienholder interest in defendant Laguna West Way.

3. The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i). The United States contends that the defendant properties were used and intended to be used to commit or facilitate violations of federal drug laws in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq. Claimants deny these allegations.

4. To date, several individuals have been charged with federal crimes related to marijuana manufacturing and distribution in two related cases, United States v. Leonard Yang, et al., Case 2:16-CR-00189-KJM and United States v. Xiu Ping Li, et al., Case No. 2:17-CR-00136-KJM, and the investigation continues concerning the marijuana grows at the defendant properties. It is the United States' position that the statute of limitations has not expired on potential criminal charges relating to the drug trafficking involving the defendant properties. Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants (and others) regarding their ownership of the defendant properties, as well as their knowledge and participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the marijuana grow at the defendant properties, as well as the circumstances behind the purchase of the properties. If discovery proceeds at this time, claimants will be placed in the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant properties, or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the claims they filed with this court.

5. In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this investigation, including but not limited to, the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"). Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would adversely impact the federal prosecution and ongoing investigation.

6. The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has potential adverse effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimant's ability to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that these matters be stayed until the conclusion of the related criminal cases. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any, and will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

7. If any of the defendant properties go into default, the parties reserve the right to seek all avenues of redress to preserve the real properties, including filing a motion for interlocutory sale or seeking a receiver appointment to collect rents and maintain the properties.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until the resolution of companion criminal cases. The parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of the conclusion of the parallel criminal cases, or as the court deems appropriate.

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