Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
United States v. Real Property in Chino
November 12, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
REAL PROPERTY IN CHINO, CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANT. FRANK P. ACOSTA, KELLI DAVIS PETERSON, FKA KELLI DAVIS HUMPHREY, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND COMMUNITY COMMERCE BANK, CLAIMANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder United States District Judge
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff United States of America and claimants Frank P. Acosta and Kelli Davis Peterson have made a stipulated request that this action be dismissed without prejudice so that the defendant property can be sold and the net proceeds of sale distributed to outstanding criminal restitution orders against claimants Acosta and Peterson. The parties have stipulated as follows:
This civil forfeiture action arises from the same general facts as the the criminal actions entitled United States v. Frank P. Acosta, CR 02-390 (B) AHS, and United States v. Kelli Anne Peterson, CR 03-41 GPS. Claimants Acosta and Peterson were convicted in the referenced criminal actions and ordered to pay restitution in the sums of $1,364,214.60 (Acosta) and $2,146,564.00 (Peterson). Claimants Acosta and Peterson are the beneficial owners of the defendant real property.
Claimants County of San Bernardino and Community Commerce Bank hold secured interests in the defendant real property that are not sought to be forfeited by the government and are not challenged by claimants Acosta and Peterson. The secured interest of the County of San Bernardino in the defendant real property was formally recognized in a stipulation and order entered in this action on May 2, 2002 (docket #19). The secured interest of Community Commerce Bank in the defendant real property was formally recognized in a stipulation and order entered in this action on August 13, 2002 (docket # 30). The orders recognizing these liens provided that the liens would be paid upon forfeiture and sale of the defendant real property. The dismissal ordered herein will have no effect on the liens, which are to be paid out of the gross proceeds of the sale.
The government and claimants Acosta and Peterson have agreed that the defendant real property should be sold and the net proceeds that otherwise would be paid to claimants Acosta and Peterson should be applied to the above-referenced restitution orders. The stipulating parties have further agree that the sale of the defendant property and distribution of the proceeds of sale to restitution are more efficiently handled through the criminal cases by the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The stipulating parties request that this action be dismissed without prejudice so that the government may proceed with the disposition of the property in the criminal case(s).
Good cause appearing therefor, the request of the parties is hereby GRANTED. This action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs and attorney fees associated with this civil forfeiture action.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For