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 Haulmark Featherlite Transport DLX Trailer

December 22, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
2006 HAULMARK FEATHERLITE TRANSPORT DLX TRAILER, VIN: 16HGB18236U046824, DATE: N/A CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 4GK3664, TIME: N/A COURTROOM: N/A 2006 HAULMARK FEATHERLITE TRANSPORT DLX TRAILER, VIN: 16HGB18206U049373, CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 4GU3031, AND 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA SR5 TRUCK, VIN: 5TEWN72N04Z464442, CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 7P49605, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

JOINT STATUS REPORT; STIPULATION FOR STAY; ORDER

Pursuant to this Court's Order Requiring Joint Status Report the plaintiff United States of American and claimants Robert Thompson and Jacqueline Thompson ("Claimants") submit the following report.

(a) Brief summary of the claims and legal theories under which recovery is sought or liability denied:

Plaintiff United States of America contends the defendant trailers and truck are forfeitable to the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) because they were used to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq.

Claimants deny the allegations and contend that their cultivation of marijuana complied with state law.

(b) Status of service upon all defendants and cross-defendants and claimants:

All potential claimants to the vehicles have been served.

(c) Possible joinder of additional parties:

None known at this time.

(d) Contemplated amendments to the pleadings:

Plaintiff has advised claimants that their Answers do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has suggested that Amended Answers be filed. In light of the requested stay (see below) plaintiff does not object if claimants defer filing their Amended Answers until the stay is lifted.

(e) Statutory basis for jurisdiction and venue: Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355(a). Venue is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(b) and 1395, and 21 U.S.C. § 881(j).

(f) Anticipated discovery and the scheduling of discovery, including:

(1) what changes, if any, should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosure under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or will be made;

As of the December 1, 2006, amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, civil forfeiture actions are now exempt from the initial disclosure requirements applicable to most ...


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.