UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
January 5, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ONE 2006 LAMBORGHINI GALLARDO SPYDER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. JUAN RANGEL, CLAIMANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable George H. King United States District Judge
ANDRE BIROTTE JR. United States Attorney ROBERT E. DUGDALE Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division STEVEN R. WELK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section FRANK D. KORTUM Assistant United States Attorney Asset Forfeiture Section California State Bar No. 110984 United States Courthouse 312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90012 E-FILED 01-05-11 Telephone: (213) 894-5710 JS-6 Facsimile: (213) 894-7177 Email: email@example.com Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
CONSENT JUDGMENT [NOTICE OF LODGING LODGED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH]
On January 27, 2009, plaintiff United States of America ("plaintiff" or the "government") filed a Complaint for Forfeiture against the defendant properties as follows: One 2006 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder, VIN # ZHWGU22T06LA04041 ("defendant Lamborghini"), One 2007 Dodge Ram 3500 Dually, VIN # 3D7ML48C77G741613 ("defendant Dodge"), One 2007 Audi Q7, VIN # WA1BV74L87D089790 ("defendant Audi"), $4,903.18 in United States currency ("defendant currency"), consisting of $4,550.00 in United States currency and 3,810.00 Mexican Pesos, One 18K Yellow Gold Rolex Watch ("defendant Rolex watch"), One H Stern Watch ("defendant Stern watch"), and One Springfield Armory Handgun ("defendant handgun") (collectively, the "defendants"). The government alleged that the defendants were subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), and 984. On February 4, 2009, the government filed a First Amended Complaint amending the amount of the defendant currency to $4,833.07 in United States currency.
Claimant Juan Rangel ("Rangel") filed a Verified Claim on February 27, 2009. JPMorgan Chase Bank is a lienholder, but is relieved of its obligation to file a claim and answer in this litigation. No other claims, statements of interest, or answers have been filed, and the time for filing claims, statements, and answers has expired.
Plaintiff and claimant have reached an agreement that is dispositive of the action. The parties hereby request that the Court enter this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
2. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential claimants to the defendants other than claimant are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to establish a basis for forfeiture.
3. The United States of America shall have judgment as to the defendants, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The United States Marshals Service is ordered to dispose of the defendants in accordance with law.
4. With respect to the Lamborghini the terms of this Consent Judgment are subject to (1) the terms of any valid lien that may exist on that vehicle; and (2) the terms of any stipulation or other agreement between any lienholder and the government that may be necessary to protect the valid interests of either party.
5. Claimant hereby releases the United States of America, its agencies, agents, and officers, including employees and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from any and all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to this action, including, without limitation, any claim for attorney's fees, costs or interest which may be asserted on behalf of the claimant, whether pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 or otherwise.
6. Plaintiff, United States of America, agrees that it will not seek to recover civil sanctions (except to the extent that the forfeiture of the defendant vehicle can be considered a civil sanction), attorney's fees or costs in connection with this action or the underlying seizure.
7. The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendants and institution of these proceedings. //
This judgment shall be construed as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465.
The government and claimant consent to judgment and waive any right to appeal.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.