United States v. $60,000.00 in U.S. Currency

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $60,000.00 IN UNITED STATES…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jul 22, 2013

3:13-CV-00101-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Jul. 22, 2013)

Opinion

3:13-CV-00101-LRH-VPC

07-22-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $60,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant.

LARRY R. HICKS

ORDER

This is a civil forfeiture action. Before the court is plaintiff United States of America's Motion for Default Judgment and Forfeiture (#9). There has been no response.

The government's Complaint in Forfeiture (#1) alleges that on September 24, 2012, Gregory Thomas Gibbar was traveling by train from St. Louis, Missouri to Emeryville, California. Two Reno Police Department detectives had been notified of Gibbar's itinerary (though it is unclear how), and they confronted Gibbar aboard the train when it stopped in Reno, Nevada. Upon questioning by the detectives, Gibbar initially denied having large sums of currency in his possession. However, Gibbar consented to a search of his bags, and the detectives discovered $60,000 in vacuum-sealed currency.

Gibbar then identified the currency as his, claiming that he had earned it working various jobs. He stated that he intended to buy a house in Emeryville with the money, but later calls to the realtor he had identified did not verify this story. The detectives seized the currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), believing the currency to have been furnished in exchange for controlled substances. Shortly after the seizure, a drug-detection dog alerted to the currency.

On December 5, 2012, Gibbar filed an administrative claim with the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") for the seized currency. The government filed its Complaint on March 4, 2013, and the court issued a warrant for the arrest of the currency under Supplemental Rule G of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 14 (#3). The government served notice of its Complaint and the arrest warrant on Gibbar and published the notice on the government forfeiture site, www.forfeiture.gov.

Gibbar—and anyone else with an interest in the seized currency—failed to timely file a claim or answer pursuant to Supplemental Rule G. On May 15, 2013, the government moved for entry of default (#7), which the clerk of court granted the next day. The government now seeks entry of default judgment.

Under Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may enter default judgment where the clerk has previously entered default based on the defendant's (or, as here, claimaint's) failure to defend. Following entry of default, the factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). The determination of whether to grant default judgment lies within the court's discretion, though the court may consider factors such as

(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 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, the Eitel factors counsel in favor of granting default judgment. The government provided adequate service and notice to the parties known to have an interest in the currency, there is no evidence of excusable neglect justifying the failure to respond, and the amount of money is not so great as to preclude default judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Approximately $72,000 in U.S. Currency, 2009 WL 506866, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009) (holding that the sum of $72,000 was not large enough to "warrant a denial of the motion" for default judgment). Furthermore, the government has complied with the procedural requirements for forfeiture under Supplemental Rule G, and the allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to warrant forfeiture of the currency under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) as "moneys . . . furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance [or as] proceeds traceable to such an exchange." Therefore, default judgment is appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States of America's Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture (#9) is GRANTED. The court hereby certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2) that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, arrest, and forfeiture of the defendant property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE