United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California

C.D. California

United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California

DecidedFebruary 23, 2023

Docket2:20-cv-06314

StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California (United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California) 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

United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-06314-CAS-KS Document 99 Filed 02/23/23 Page1lof2 Page ID#:713 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:20-CV-06314-CAS (KSx) Date February 23, 2023 Title UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, CALFORNIA

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER (Dkt. 93, filed on FEBRUARY 6, 2023) The Court finds that Khaled J. Al-Sabah’s motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L-R. 7-15. Accordingly, the matter is hereby taken under submission. On May 9, 2022, plaintiff the United States of America filed a consolidated master verified complaint for forfeiture (the “Consolidated Complaint”), bringing forfeiture claims against the defendant assets, six real properties located in Los Angeles, California, and nine non-real property assets. Dkt. 55. On July 27, 2022, claimant Khaled J. Al- Sabah filed an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 76.! On December 5, 2022, the Court ordered that the parties file any requests for leave to file amended pleadings or to add parties by March 3, 2023. Dkt. 90. On February 6, 2023, claimant Al-Sabah filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer. Dkt. 93. Specifically, Al-Sabah seeks to add an affirmative “innocent owner” defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d). Id, at 1. In his motion, Al-Sabah states that plaintiff does not oppose his motion for leave to amend his answer. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Al-Sabah’s motion. Al-Sabah’s motion is presently before the Court.

! Answers to the Consolidated Complaint were also filed by claimants County of Los Angeles, Franco Noval, and Blue Orchid Financial LLC. See dkts. 59, 71, 72. CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Case 2:20-cv-06314-CAS-KS Document 99 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2of2 Page ID#:714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:20-CV-06314-CAS (KSx) Date February 23, 2023 Title UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, CALFORNIA Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”) provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Where leave to amend is sought, the decision whether to grant leave to amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: [1] bad faith, [2] undue delay, [3] prejudice to the opposing party, [4] futility of amendment, and [5] whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). Some factors may be weighted more heavily than others; for example, “[s]ome courts have stressed prejudice to the opposing party as the key factor.” Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court finds that Al-Sabah has satisfied the requirements of Rule 15. His request is made in good faith and is unlikely to result in delay or prejudice to plaintiff, as he has filed his motion well before the Court’s March 3, 2023 deadline. See dkt. 90. Moreover, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Al-Sabah’s motion and has not identified any risk of prejudice or raised any futility issues. The Court construes plaintiffs failure to file an opposition as consent to the Court’s granting of Al-Sabah’s motion. See C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that giving leave to amend Al|- Sabah’s answer is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (leave shall by “freely give[n] [] when justice so requires”). In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS AI-Sabah’s motion for leave to file an amended answer. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer COMMS

CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

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

Case 2:20-cv-06314-CAS-KS Document 99 Filed 02/23/23 Page1lof2 Page ID#:713 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:20-CV-06314-CAS (KSx) Date February 23, 2023 Title UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, CALFORNIA

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER (Dkt. 93, filed on FEBRUARY 6, 2023) The Court finds that Khaled J. Al-Sabah’s motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L-R. 7-15. Accordingly, the matter is hereby taken under submission. On May 9, 2022, plaintiff the United States of America filed a consolidated master verified complaint for forfeiture (the “Consolidated Complaint”), bringing forfeiture claims against the defendant assets, six real properties located in Los Angeles, California, and nine non-real property assets. Dkt. 55. On July 27, 2022, claimant Khaled J. Al- Sabah filed an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 76.! On December 5, 2022, the Court ordered that the parties file any requests for leave to file amended pleadings or to add parties by March 3, 2023. Dkt. 90. On February 6, 2023, claimant Al-Sabah filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer. Dkt. 93. Specifically, Al-Sabah seeks to add an affirmative “innocent owner” defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d). Id, at 1. In his motion, Al-Sabah states that plaintiff does not oppose his motion for leave to amend his answer. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Al-Sabah’s motion. Al-Sabah’s motion is presently before the Court.

! Answers to the Consolidated Complaint were also filed by claimants County of Los Angeles, Franco Noval, and Blue Orchid Financial LLC. See dkts. 59, 71, 72. CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Case 2:20-cv-06314-CAS-KS Document 99 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2of2 Page ID#:714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:20-CV-06314-CAS (KSx) Date February 23, 2023 Title UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, CALFORNIA Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”) provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Where leave to amend is sought, the decision whether to grant leave to amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: [1] bad faith, [2] undue delay, [3] prejudice to the opposing party, [4] futility of amendment, and [5] whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). Some factors may be weighted more heavily than others; for example, “[s]ome courts have stressed prejudice to the opposing party as the key factor.” Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court finds that Al-Sabah has satisfied the requirements of Rule 15. His request is made in good faith and is unlikely to result in delay or prejudice to plaintiff, as he has filed his motion well before the Court’s March 3, 2023 deadline. See dkt. 90. Moreover, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Al-Sabah’s motion and has not identified any risk of prejudice or raised any futility issues. The Court construes plaintiffs failure to file an opposition as consent to the Court’s granting of Al-Sabah’s motion. See C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that giving leave to amend Al|- Sabah’s answer is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (leave shall by “freely give[n] [] when justice so requires”). In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS AI-Sabah’s motion for leave to file an amended answer. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer COMMS

CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-real-property-located-in-los-angeles-california-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack