USA v. Approximately $26,805.00 in U.S. Currency, et al., No. 2:2015cv01273 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/21/15 RECOMMENDING: that Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna Bennallack be held in default; that the United States' 13 Motion for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of forfeiture be granted; that judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interest of potential claimants Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna Bennallack in the defendant assets referenced in the above caption; that a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant assets to the United States, to be disposed of according to law. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to these F&Rs due within 14 days. (Benson, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 2:15-cv-01273-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. APPROXIMATELY $26,805.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, and 15 16 2015 DODGE 1500 TRUCK, VIN: 3C6JR6AT5FG554362, CALIFORNIA LICENSE NUMBER: 95046T1, 17 Defendants. 18 19 This case, commenced on June 15, 2015, is a civil action in rem to forfeit to the United States 20 several assets allegedly involved in violations of federal drug laws. (ECF No. 1.) To date, no claims to 21 the defendant assets have been filed. On July 24, 2015, the Clerk of Court entered the default of 22 potential claimants Roderick Battle, Brianna Bennallack, Susan Gee, Carole Loy, Daniel Potter, and 23 Mark Spooner. (ECF No. 12.) 24 Presently pending before the court is the United States’ motion for default judgment and final 25 judgment of forfeiture, which was filed on August 14, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) On August 18, 2015, the 26 court issued an order requiring any opposition to the motion to be filed no later than September 15, 27 2015. (ECF No. 16.) That order, along with the underlying motion papers, was served on potential 28 claimants Roderick Battle, Brianna Bennallack, Susan Gee, Carole Loy, Daniel Potter, and Mark 1 Findings and Recommendations 29 30 1 Spooner at their last-known addresses. (ECF No. 17.) Although the deadline for filing an opposition 2 has now passed, no opposition or other response to the motion was filed by Roderick Battle, Brianna 3 Bennallack, Susan Gee, Carole Loy, Daniel Potter, Mark Spooner, or any other person. 4 After carefully considering the United States’ motion, as well as the files and records of the 5 court, the court FINDS as follows: 6 1. This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem filed on or about 7 June 15, 2015. 8 2. The United States has moved this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 540, for entry of default 9 judgment of forfeiture against potential claimants Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole 10 Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna Bennallack. 11 3. The United States has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that potential 12 claimants Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna 13 Bennallack received notice of the forfeiture action; that any and all other unknown potential claimants 14 have been served by publication; and that grounds exist for entry of a final judgment of forfeiture. 15 Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 16 1. That Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna 17 Bennallack be held in default; 18 2. That the United States’ motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture 19 (ECF No. 13) be granted; 20 3. That judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interest of potential 21 claimants Daniel Potter, Susan Gee, Mark Spooner, Carole Loy, Roderick Battle and Brianna 22 Bennallack in the defendant assets referenced in the above caption; 23 4. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant 24 assets to the United States, to be disposed of according to law; 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 26 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being 27 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court 28 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 2 Findings and Recommendations 29 30 1 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and 2 filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 3 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 4 order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 5 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: October 21, 2015 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 Findings and Recommendations

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.