Opinion
14-cr-00139-SI-1
06-21-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID LONICH, et al., Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 1121
ORDER DENYING MOTION FILED BY DAVID LONICH, ACTING IN PRO PER, FOR CORRECTION OF FORFEITURE ORDER
SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge
David Lonich has filed a pro se motion “for correction of forfeiture order.” Dkt. No. 1121. Lonich states that “the issue raised by the Motion is not that forfeiture of Lonich's interest in Park Lane Villas-East was in error, but rather that the United States is using the forfeiture of Lonich's interest in Park Lane Villas-East to retain ALL of Park Lane Villas East.” Reply at 5 (Dkt. No. 1130). Lonich seeks an order specifying “what, if any, portion of Park Lane Villas-East can properly be forfeited,” and he argues that “any amount not forfeitable should be returned to 101 [Houseco LLC].” Id. at 15.
In prior orders entered in this case and the related criminal cases, the Court ordered the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East, finding that the property constituted the proceeds of the offenses committed by Lonich and defendant James House. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 745; see also United States v. House, CR 14-329 SI, Dkt. No. 119. In addition, this Court previously found, based upon the evidence presented at trial, that Lonich (and Madjlessi) created 101 Houseco LLC in order to carry out the fraud and money laundering for which Lonich was convicted at trial, and that “101 Houseco's sole purpose at the time of its creation was to perpetuate defendants' fraud to reclaim Park Lake Villas East.” See Dkt. No. 745 at 8; see also United States v. Houseco LLC, 22 F.4th 843 (9th Cir. 2022) (affirming dismissal of 101 Houseco's petitions challenging the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas-East “because 101 Houseco was created to perpetuate a fraud”).
The government opposes Lonich's motion on numerous grounds. Dkt. No. 1126.
The Court concludes that Lonich's motion is wholly without merit for all of the reasons stated in the government's opposition. In addition, the Court notes that this case is currently on appeal, and that Lonich (represented by counsel on the appeal) has filed a cross-appeal of the May 9, 2023 amended judgment. Finally, the Court is surprised that Lonich continues to challenge the forfeiture of Park Lane Villas East and seeks to have forfeiture proceeds “returned” to 101 Houseco LLC, notwithstanding the orders of this Court and the Ninth Circuit finding that Lonich created 101 Houseco LLC to fraudulently obtain Park Lane Villas-East. The Court has no objection to the government providing a copy of this Order and the parties' briefing on the current motion to those in charge of Mr. Lonich's supervised release in the Middle District of Alabama.
IT IS SO ORDERED.