DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the government's motion to strike the claims and answers of all the remaining claimants and for entry of a default judgment and final order of forfeiture.
The government filed its complaint for forfeiture on November 3, 2011. The complaint alleges that the currency, guns, and vehicles named as defendants in rem were seized during drug raids at the subject real property, 20277 Ida Center Road, in Petersburg, Michigan, that took place in June and August 2011. Based on evidence uncovered during those raids, on April 20, 2011, a jury found claimant Gerald Duval, Jr. guilty of manufacturing and conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1); maintaining a drug premises, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1); possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). United States v. Duval, 11-20594 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2012).
The complaint alleges that the guns and vehicles are subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(11), because they were possessed, used, or intended to be used in furtherance of a drug crime. The complaint alleges that the $3,980 in U.S. currency is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), because it is money that was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, or represents proceeds traceable to such an exchange. The complaint alleges that the real property at 20277 Ida Center Road is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), because it was used as a drug premises. Copies of the complaint for forfeiture were served on claimants Gerald Duval, Jr., Gerald Duval, Sr., Sharon J. Duval, Tracey Duval, and Marilyn Hunt on November 17, 2011. Declaration of Gjon Juncaj [dkt. #46] at 3-5. According to the government's declaration filed in support of its prior motion for default judgment:
Id. at 7. No claims were filed as to the guns or currency, and the time for doing so has long since passed. Moreover, no party has filed any answer to the complaint on behalf of these defendants in rem, and the time for doing so likewise has long since expired.
On February 17, 2012, the Court stayed the matter pending the resolution of the criminal charges against claimant Gerald Duval, Jr. After the criminal matter was resolved, the Court ordered all of the claimants to respond to the government's written discovery requests on or before March 25, 2013. The claimants failed to do so, and at an April 15, 2013 hearing in this matter the Court advised two of the claimants, Gerald Duval, Jr. and Tracey Duval, that "[i]f the discovery responses have not been furnished by May 20th . . . the Court may consider a request to dismiss the claims and enter judgment for the Government under the circumstances." Hr'g Tr. Apr. 15, 2013 [dkt. #71] at 11. The government's motion asserts that the claimants never responded to the written discovery requests. No party has filed any response to the government's motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The Court therefore finds that it is appropriate under the circumstances to strike the claims and answers of the remaining claimants and enter judgment by default in favor of the government as to all property at issue in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), (vi).
Because the answers of the claimants will be stricken, the Court must accept as true all of the well pleaded and now uncontested allegations of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6); Trice v. Lake & Country Real Estate, No. 86-1205, 1987 WL 38852, at *2 (6th Cir. 1987) ("[A] default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants are liable to plaintiff as to each cause of action alleged in the complaint.") (quotation marks omitted). Based on the judicial record in this matter and United States v. Duval, 11-20594, and the well pleaded allegations of the complaint, the Court finds that all of the property specified in the complaint is subject to forfeiture under federal law. The Court therefore will grant the government's motion and enter a default judgment and final order of forfeiture in favor of the government as to all of the subject property.
Accordingly, it is
It is further
It is further
It is further