United States v. $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18cv1779-L(BLM) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST 12 v. JULIAN GOMEZ GONZALEZ, JR. AND ALL POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS 13 $20,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, [Doc. no. 15] 14 $15,248.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 15 $3,273.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Government’s noticed motion for default 19 judgment (Doc. no. 15) on a verified complaint for forfeiture. No opposition to the motion 20 was filed or otherwise received from Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. or any other potential 21 claimants. For the reasons which follow, the Government's motion is granted. 22 This is a judicial forfeiture action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Defendants 23 $20,000 in U.S. currency, $15,248 in U.S. currency, and $3,237 in U.S. currency were 24 seized from Julian Gonzalez on November 7, 2013 by the Drug Enforcement 25 Administration agents during a drug trafficking investigation. (Doc. no. 1 ("Compl.").) 26 On July 25, 2014, the Government filed an indictment against Gonzalez, charging him with 27 conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and launder money. (Compl. at 6, case no. 28 14cr2125-DMS.) Included in the indictment was a count for criminal forfeiture of the 2 hearing on January 8, 2015 pursuant to a pre-trial warrant. (Case no. 14cr2125-DMS, docs. no. 17, 18.) The warrant remains outstanding, and the criminal case remains pending. (Id.) 3 On August 1, 2018, the Government filed a verified Complaint for Forfeiture against 4 the defendants $20,000.00 in U.S. currency, $15,248.00 in U.S. currency, and $3,273.00 5 in U.S. currency. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1355(a). 6 Defendants have been seized pursuant to in rem warrants issued on August 31, 2018 7 and September 5, 2018. (Docs. no. 4, 5.) The Government's declaration in support of 8 motion for default judgment indicates that on August 5, 2018, a notice of this action was 9 posted on the United States forfeiture website for 30 days pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) 10 of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, 11 and that on August 31, 2018, a copy of the complaint and notice of this action were sent to 12 Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. and his attorney by Federal Express. (Smith Decl. (doc. no. 13 10-3) at 2.) No claim or answer has been filed regarding the above-named defendant 14 properties by Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. or any other potential claimants. 15 16 On December 3, 2018, a Declaration of and Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as 17 to Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. and All Potential Claimants was filed in this case. A Clerk's 18 Entry of Default was issued on December 3, 2018. (Doc. no. 9.) On March 9, 2020, the 19 Government filed and served its Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment by Default as 20 to Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. and All Potential Claimants. (Doc. no. 15.) 21 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a court may order default 22 judgment following entry of default by clerk. Entry of default does not automatically 23 entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924- 24 25 (9th Cir. 1986). In deciding whether to grant a motion for a default judgment, the court 25 must consider the following factors (Eitel factors): 26 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money 27 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; 28 (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy 2 merits. 3 NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Eitel v. 4 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)). 5 Plaintiff’s verified complaint sets forth adequate evidence demonstrating the 6 forfeitability of the defendants. Further, Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. and all potential 7 claimants have not come forward to dispute the facts. The Government has demonstrated, 8 by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants were properties involved in and 9 proceeds of violations of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, and 10 forfeitable to the United States pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 881(a)(6). 11 The Government’s motion (see doc. no. 15-1 at 11-15) adequately addresses the Eitel 12 factors to warranty entr of judgment by default. In the alternative, entry of default 13 judgment is appropriate based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, 28 U.S.C. § 2466. 14 The Government’s motion (see doc. no. 15-1 at 15-18) adequately addresses the Collazos 15 factors for the application of the doctrine. See U.S. v. $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 16 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing factors). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion for entry of default judgment 18 is granted. It is hereby ordered that the interest of Julian Gomez Gonzalez, Jr. and all 19 potential claimants be ordered condemned and forfeited to the United States. In addition, 20 the defendants are hereby condemned and forfeited to the United States of America 21 pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 881(a)(6). Judgment shall be entered on 22 Plaintiff’s complaint in favor of the United States of America. 23 / / / / / 24 25 26 27 28 Costs incurred by the United States Marshals Service, and any other Governmental > agencies which were incident to the seizure, custody, and storage of the defendants shall 3 be the first charge against the forfeited defendants. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: October 25, 2020 ° Wy James seas 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28