United States v. Approximately $42,323.00 in U.S. Currency

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01410
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01410-EPG 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT 12 APPROXIMATELY $42,323.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, et al., 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 14, 15) 14

15 16 Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed this action on November 11, 2024, and has 17 since sought and obtained a clerk’s entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) 18 against Defendants Gregory Brightman and Raymond Fitzgerald Cash, Jr. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). Given the Clerk’s entry of default, the Court will set a deadline for Plaintiff to move for default 19 judgment under Rule 55(b)(2).1 Additionally, the Court advises Plaintiff of the following basic 20 requirements for a motion for default judgment.2 21 The motion must establish proper service on Defendants and the Court’s jurisdiction. In 22 re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party 23 who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its 24 jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.”); see S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. 25 Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We review de novo whether default judgment is void 26

27 1 Alternatively, if Plaintiffs believe a default judgment by the Clerk is appropriate under Rule 55(b)(1), Plaintiff may file such a request. 28 2 This order does not purport to advise Plaintiff of all applicable requirements. 1 | because of lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process.”). Here, the proof 2 | of service documents assert that Defendants were personally served. (ECF Nos. 10, 11). Plaintiff 3 | must identify which service provisions govern and specify how they were satisfied. 4 The motion must address the relevant factors regarding default judgment. See Eitel v. 5 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting seven factors that courts may consider 6 before exercising discretion to enter default judgment). Here, the complaint identifies one count 7 for forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Plaintiff must address this count and show that 8 the requirements for forfeiture are satisfied.

9 The motion must support any request for attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. See In re Ferrell, 539 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting party seeking attorney fees and 8 costs must specify basis for such award); Schneider v. Cnty. of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Whether prejudgment interest is permitted in a particular case is a matter of statutory 2 interpretation, federal common law, and, in some instances, state law.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A 13 default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”). Here, Plaintiff must identify the recovery sought under the complaint, specify the 15 authority that supports it, and explain how any monetary amount sought is justified. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 17 1. Plaintiff has until April 24, 2025, to move for default judgment against Defendants. 18 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment shall provide developed argument, including 19 citation to the record and relevant legal authority, in addressing the requirements 20 discussed above and any other applicable requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) 21 (noting that motions must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order”). 2 3. The initial scheduling conference set for April 29, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED, 23 along with related deadlines. (ECF Nos. 2, 12). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: _ March 24, 2025 [Je hey 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE