Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. 2006 Toyota Tundra SR-5 Truck

June 16, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
2006 TOYOTA TUNDRA SR-5 TRUCK, VIN: 5TBDT44176S529821, CALIFORNIA LICENSE NUMBER: 8C49361, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER [PROPOSED]

DATE: June 29, 2009

TIME: 9:00 a.m

COURTROOM: 10

Plaintiff United States of America submits the following Status Report, Request for Stay, and Proposed Order pursuant this Court's March 26, 2009, order. Plaintiff solicited input from claimant Richard Miller's attorney but got no response.

a. Service: The forfeiture complaint in rem was served on Richard Miller, the only individual believed to have an interest in the defendant property.

In addition, notice of this action was posted on the official government internet site, www.forfeiture.gov, for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on March 17, 2009.

b. Possible joinder of additional parties: Plaintiff does not anticipate joining additional parties, and the time for filing claims based on receiving notice of this forfeiture action via the internet publication has passed. Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions provides that a person other than one who has received direct notice of this action may file a claim within 60 days of the first day of publication on the internet site.

c. Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings: None anticipated at this time.

d. Jurisdiction and venue:

This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395.

e. Anticipated motions and suggested dates: In light of the request for a 6-month stay (see below), plaintiff does not request that motion dates be scheduled at this time.

f. Anticipated and outstanding discovery:

(1) What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.