From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Benz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 12, 2012
NO. CIV. S-09-0045 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-09-0045 LKK/GGH

01-12-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2007 MERCEDES BENZ, S550, VIN: WDDNG71X77A065783, CALIFORNIA LICENSE NUMBER: 369ALE, Defendant.


ORDER

The government's "Motion To Strike Claim and Answer of Nino A. Cefalu" was originally scheduled to be heard on December 19, 2011. Claimant's opposition or Statement of Non-opposition was due on December 5, 2011, per E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 230(c). Claimant, who is represented by Mark Joseph Reichel, Esq., did not file an opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition.

The court thereupon (i) issued an Order To Show Cause why Claimant's counsel should not be sanctioned with a fine of $150 and/or an order striking Claimant's Claim and Answer, and (ii) ordered Claimant to file an opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the government's motion.

Claimant has not complied with the court's order to file a response to the government's Motion To Strike, and counsel for Claimant has not timely responded to the OSC.

Counsel has now late-filed a declaration in response to the Order to Show Cause claiming that he thought he had substituted out as counsel (Dkt. No. 27). However, the declaration establishes that counsel failed to comply with Local Rule 182(g), concerning substitution of attorneys. Accordingly, counsel never substitute out as counsel. Counsel's declaration, which he signed as "Attorney for Claimant," states his non-opposition to the striking of the claim and to the sanction imposed pursuant to the Order to Show Cause.

Accordingly:

1. The government's unopposed Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 23), is GRANTED, pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A), and the January 17, 2012 hearing is accordingly VACATED.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE Claimant's Claim and Answer (Dkt. No. 10).

3. Counsel for Claimant is SANCTIONED in the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

LAWRENCES K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

United States v. Benz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 12, 2012
NO. CIV. S-09-0045 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Benz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2007 MERCEDES BENZ, S550, VIN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

NO. CIV. S-09-0045 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)