United States v. Approx. 10.19321397 Bitcoin ( 2022 )

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 99 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1100 1111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:21-cv-2353 TLN DB 1122 Plaintiff, ORDER AND 1133 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1144 APPROXIMATELY 10.19321397 BITCOIN, 1155 1166 Defendant. 1177 This matter came before the undersigned on the United States’ ex parte motion for default 1188 judgment. There was no appearance by or on behalf of any other person or entity claiming an interest 1199 in the above-captioned defendant cryptocurrency to oppose the United States’ motion. Based on the 2200 United States’ motion and the files and records of the court, the undersigned finds as follows: 2211 1. This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem filed December 17, 2222 2021. 2233 2. The United States has moved this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 540, for entry of default 2244 judgment of forfeiture against potential claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and 2255 Binance. 2266 3. The United States has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that potential 2277 claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance received notice of the forfeiture action; 1 || that any and all other unknown potential claimants have been served by publication; and that grounds 2 || exist for entry of a final judgment of forfeiture. 3 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this order the 4 || United States shall serve a copy of this order on the potential claimants via any method previously 5 |] permitted in this action. 6 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 7 1. That Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance be held in default; 8 2. That the United States’ motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture be 9 || granted; 10 3. That judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interest of potential 11 || claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance in the defendant cryptocurrency 12 || referenced in the above caption; 13 4. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant 14 || cryptocurrency to the United States, to be disposed of according to law; 15 5. That the Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture lodged herein be signed by 16 || the assigned District Judge and filed by the Clerk of the Court. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 18 || to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-eight days after being 19 || served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court 20 || and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 22 || fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 23 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 24 || 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || Dated: May 26, 2022 27 || DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/USv10.19321397.2353.mdj.f&rs BORAH BARNES 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277