Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. FALLS, 3:13-CR-00019-FDW. (2014)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20140423b69 Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Petition by MidFirst Bank to Determine its Interest in Property Subject to Forfeiture filed on April 10, 2014. (Doc. No. 138). MidFirst Bank filed its Petition in response to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for the property located at 1222 Karrendale Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28208, (Doc. No. 124), entered on March 4, 2014. In addition to MidFirst Bank's Petition, Cassandra Ligon filed a Petition in respon
More

ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Petition by MidFirst Bank to Determine its Interest in Property Subject to Forfeiture filed on April 10, 2014. (Doc. No. 138). MidFirst Bank filed its Petition in response to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for the property located at 1222 Karrendale Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28208, (Doc. No. 124), entered on March 4, 2014.

In addition to MidFirst Bank's Petition, Cassandra Ligon filed a Petition in response to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. No. 126). Because of procedural deficiencies, the Court granted Petitioner Ligon until Thursday April 24, 2014, to amend her Petition. Additionally, the Court granted Petitioner Ligon's Motion for an Extension of Time, (Doc. No. 139), to extend the deadline for Petitioner Ligon to respond to the Government's Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Petition, or in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 132), until May 16, 2014. (Doc. No. 141).

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(4), the Court is directed, "to the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of justice," to hold a hearing on a petition within thirty (30) days after the petition is filed. If multiple third parties filed petitions, the Court is permitted to consolidate the hearings into one hearing. Id.

Upon review, the Court believes that the resolution of the claims asserted in Petitioner MidFirst Bank's Petition and the claims asserted in Petitioner Ligon's Petition will be related and, therefore, elects to consolidate the hearings on both Petitions into a single hearing. Because the Court has granted Petitioner Ligon an extension of time to respond to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to DEFER on scheduling a hearing on the Petitions until after Petitioner Ligon has responded.

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