September 26, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15750 ARROW BLVD., FONTANA, CALIFORNIA (EPIC PLAZA), Defendant. PREFERRED BANK, Claimant.
ANDRÉ 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, JONATHAN GALATZAN, Assistant United States Attorney, California Bar Number 190414, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C., KENNETH N. RUSSAK, Attorney for Claimant, PREFERRED BANK.
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This action was filed on November 21, 2012. Notice was given and published in accordance with law. Claimant Preferred Bank filed a claim on January 2, 2013 and its answer on January 23, 2013, basing its claim on a loan in the original principal amount of $6, 680, 000.00, recorded on October 10, 2007 in the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office as document no. 2007-0571802, and a loan in an amount of $535, 000.00, recorded on March 8, 2010 in the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office as document no. 2010-0089647, in favor of Preferred Bank.
No other claims or answers have been filed, and the time for filing claims and answers has expired. Plaintiff United States of America ("the government") and Preferred Bank have reached an agreement that, without further litigation and without an admission of any wrongdoing by Preferred Bank, is dispositive of the government's claims against this property, and hereby request that the Court enter this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture ("Consent Judgment").
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. This Couirt has juridicition over the parties to this judgment and the subject matter of ts action.
2. On or about November 21, 2012, the government filed a Complaint for Forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) against the defendant real property.
3. Preferred Bank filed a claim and answer to the defendant property. No other claimant has appeared in this action.
4. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. No appearances having been made in this action by any party other than Preferred Bank, the Court deems that all other potential claimants admit the allegations of the Complaint to be true.
5. On July 10, 2013, the Court ordered that cash be substituted for the defendant real property in the event Preferred Bank sold its Note and Deed of Trust. The sale took place on July 17, 2013, and Preferred Bank was paid the net sum of $3, 150, 000.00. A check in that amount made out to the United States Marshal Service was sent to counsel for the government. Counsel for the government has maintained custody of that check and it has not been deposited or negotiated. The amount of $3, 150, 000.00, per the Court's order, is now the substitute in rem defendant, in place of the defendant real property.
6. In consideration of the government's agreement not to pursue forfeiture of the $3, 150, 000.00 or any other amount pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 881 (a)(6) or (7) in connection with the allegations of the complaint, Preferred Bank shall pay the sum of $20, 000.00 to the government not later than sixty days following entry of this Consent Judgment by the Court. Such payment shall be made in the form of a cashier's check made payable to the United States Marshal Service, and shall be delivered to Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Galatzan, 312 N. Spring Street, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. Said sum is to be considered a substitute res for the $3, 150, 000.00 and is hereby ordered forfeited to the United States of America and no other right, title or interest shall exist therein. Upon receipt of the $20, 000.00 check, the government shall mark the $3, 150, 000.00 check "VOID" and return it, uncashed, to or as directed by counsel to Preferred Bank. The United States Marshal Service is ordered to dispose of the proceeds of the $20, 000.00 check in accordance with law.
7. Preferred Bank has released the United States of America, its agencies, agents, and officers, including, without limitation, employees and other representatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration, from any and all claims, defenses, actions, or liabilities arising out of or related to this action against the defendant real property or substitute property, including, without limitation, any and all claims for attorneys' fees, costs or interest which may be asserted by them or on their behalf.
8. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the provisions of this Consent Judgment.
9. This Consent Judgment may be executed in any number of counterparts so long as each signatory hereto executes at least one such counterpart. Each such counterpart shall constitute one original, but all such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same Consent Judgment.
10. Execution by Parties. This Consent Judgment shall only be effective and shall only be binding on the parties if it is executed by counsel for the parties and approved by the Court.
11. This Consent Judgment may be executed by transmitting an executed signature page by e-mail in PDF format to counsel for the other party, and by promptly sending to the other party an originally executed signature page; provided, however, that if a party fails to subsequently send an originally executed signature page to the other party, the Consent Judgment shall remain validly executed by PDF format signature.