Does 1 v. United States of America

C.D. California

Does 1 v. United States of America

DecidedOctober 8, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-03254

StatusUnknown

This text of Does 1 v. United States of America (Does 1 v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Does 1 v. United States of America, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIS6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR Date October 8, 2021 Title Does 1 et al v. United States of America et al

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Sharon L. Williams Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order of Dismissal

Two claims remain pending in this case: Plaintiffs’ first claim, for violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and second claim, for return of property pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In a joint status report filed by the parties on September 27, 2021, (“JSR”) (ECF No. 52), Defendants asserted that the Government has filed civil forfeiture actions against all of the property that the Government seized from Plaintiffs and currently has in its possession. (JSR at 2-3). Because the only relief Plaintiffs seek via their first and second claims is equitable relief ordering the Government to return their property, and because Plaintiffs may obtain this relief in the judicial forfeiture proceedings filed against their property, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ first and second claims. See United States v. U.S. Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[W]hen a civil forfeiture proceeding has been filed, the claimant has adequate remedies to challenge any fourth amendment violation[,]” and “there is no need to fashion an equitable remedy to secure justice for the claimant.”). Plaintiffs request “leave of Court to file an amended complaint 1) to add one or more non- anonymous Plaintiffs, and/or 2) to add or revise one or more causes of action.” (JSR at 1). Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED—Plaintiffs make no attempt to show how adding parties or adding claims to their operative complaint would cure the defect set forth in this order or the defects set forth in the Court’s order dismissing the rest of Plaintiffs’ claims. (ECF No. 51). Accordingly, this case is hereby CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIS6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR Date October 8, 2021 Title Does 1 et al v. United States of America et al

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Sharon L. Williams Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order of Dismissal

Two claims remain pending in this case: Plaintiffs’ first claim, for violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and second claim, for return of property pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In a joint status report filed by the parties on September 27, 2021, (“JSR”) (ECF No. 52), Defendants asserted that the Government has filed civil forfeiture actions against all of the property that the Government seized from Plaintiffs and currently has in its possession. (JSR at 2-3). Because the only relief Plaintiffs seek via their first and second claims is equitable relief ordering the Government to return their property, and because Plaintiffs may obtain this relief in the judicial forfeiture proceedings filed against their property, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ first and second claims. See United States v. U.S. Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[W]hen a civil forfeiture proceeding has been filed, the claimant has adequate remedies to challenge any fourth amendment violation[,]” and “there is no need to fashion an equitable remedy to secure justice for the claimant.”). Plaintiffs request “leave of Court to file an amended complaint 1) to add one or more non- anonymous Plaintiffs, and/or 2) to add or revise one or more causes of action.” (JSR at 1). Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED—Plaintiffs make no attempt to show how adding parties or adding claims to their operative complaint would cure the defect set forth in this order or the defects set forth in the Court’s order dismissing the rest of Plaintiffs’ claims. (ECF No. 51). Accordingly, this case is hereby CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Does 1 v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/does-1-v-united-states-of-america-cacd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack