United States of America v. $3,275.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 3:2012cv00543 - Document 19 (S.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER granting 16 Motion for Default Judgment as to Mamie Lee Robbins in the amount of $3,275.00. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/27/2013. (sjt)

Download PDF
United States of America v. $3,275.00 in U.S. Currency Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 12-cv-543-L(WVG) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ) DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO MAMIE v. ) LEE ROBBINS [DOC. 16] ) $3,275.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”)’s motion 20 for default judgment seeking forfeiture of the interests of Mamie Lee Robbins. This action was 21 brought against Defendant $3,275.00 in U.S. Currency (“defendant property”), constituting 22 money furnished in exchange for a controlled substance that is liable for condemnation and 23 forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). None of the potential claimants, including Ms. Robbins, 24 have opposed. 25 The Court found this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and 26 without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 18.) For the following reasons, the Court 27 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (Doc. 16.) 28 // 12cv543 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On September 6, 2011, Escondido Police Department detectives had a state search 3 warrant for Ms. Robbins, her vehicle, and her residence. (Compl. ¶ 3 [Doc. 1].) Ms. Robbins 4 and Ellen Hall were contacted in Ms. Robbins’ vehicle in Escondido, California, and detained 5 pursuant to the search warrant. (Id.) 6 Ms. Robbins admitted possessing methamphetamine on her person, in her vehicle, and her 7 apartment. (Compl. ¶ 4.) A detective retrieved a container from Ms. Robbins’ front pocket that 8 contained twenty small baggies that appeared to be marked by weight with a total weight of 9 approximately 35.61 grams of methamphetamine. (Id.) The container also had numerous 10 hydrocodone pills in baggies inside of it. (Id.) Ms. Robbins told the detective that there was 11 more dope in the car and that it was going to be a “sales case”. (Id.) The detective found a 12 handbag in the car that contained the following items: (1) $3,275.00 in U.S. Currency, (2) a box 13 containing a baggie with approximately 2.69 grams of methamphetamine in it, (3) packaging 14 materials, (4) a digital scale, and (5) a metal container with approximately 0.79 grams of 15 methamphetamine in it. (Id.) 16 Ms. Hall told detectives that she had a small bag of methamphetamine, which she pulled 17 out of her pants pocket. (Compl. ¶ 5.) She said that it was given to her by Ms. Robbins. (Id.) 18 The detectives then went to Ms. Robbins’ apartment to finish serving the search warrant. 19 (Compl. ¶ 6.) The detectives noticed several surveillance cameras connected to monitors 20 oriented towards the outside of the apartment. (Id.) Packaging materials and a pay-and-owe 21 sheet were also found. (Id.) Other items found include mail addressed to Ms. Robbins, two 22 digital scales, and approximately 15 grams of methamphetamine. (Id.) 23 Ms. Robbins said that she did not have another job, and selling drugs is how she makes 24 money. (Compl. ¶ 7.) 25 Based on training and experience, the narcotics detectives believed “the defendant 26 currency represented the proceeds of selling methamphetamine and was in an amount and 27 denominations consistent with the sales of methamphetamine at that level and that the 28 methamphetamine found on Robbins’ person, in her purse, and in her apartment was being 12cv543 2 1 distributed and sold for profit.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) This opinion is based upon the quantity of 2 methamphetamine, scales, currency, packaging, pay-and-owe sheet, and Ms. Robbins’ 3 statements concerning the sales of methamphetamine. (Id.) 4 Ms. Robbins eventually pled guilty to violating California Health and Safety Code §§ 5 11378 and 11351, Possession of Methamphetamine for Sale and Possession of Hydrocodone for 6 Sale, in the San Diego Superior Court. (Compl. ¶ 8.) 7 On March 2, 2012, the Government filed a complaint for forfeiture against the defendant 8 property. (Doc. 1.) On March 8, 2012, an agent of the United States Marshal Service seized and 9 arrested the defendant property under the Court’s order appointing him as custodian. (Running 10 Decl. ¶ 3.) 11 On March 6, 2012, the Government sent a Notice of Judicial Forfeiture Proceedings and a 12 copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture to Mamie Lee Robbins at three different addresses, Jill 13 Wageman, and Ellen Gay Hall as potential claimants. (Running Decl. ¶ 4.) On May 24, 2012, 14 the same notice and complaint was sent to Mamie Lee Robbins at a fourth address as a potential 15 claimant. (Id. ¶ 5.) Notice of this civil forfeiture action was posted on www.forfeiture.gov for at 16 least thirty consecutive days beginning on March 7, 2012. (Id. ¶ 6.) No claim or answer has 17 been filed regarding the defendant property. (Id.) 18 On June 6, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered default against any and all potential 19 claimants except Mamie Lee Robbins. (Doc. 8.) Thereafter, the Government filed this motion 20 for default judgment. (Doc. 9.) None of the potential claimants have opposed. Thereafter, the 21 Court granted the Government’s motion. (Doc. 11.) 22 The Government now moves for default judgment against Mr. Robbins. (Doc. 16.) 23 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs applications to the court 26 for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Default judgment is available as long as the 27 plaintiff establishes: (1) defendant has been served with the summons and complaint and default 28 was entered for their failure to appear; (2) defendant is neither a minor nor an incompetent 12cv543 3 1 person; (3) defendant is not in military service or not otherwise subject to the Soldiers and 2 Sailors Relief Act of 1940; and (4) if defendant has appeared in the action, that defendant was 3 provided with notice of the application for default judgment at least three days prior to the 4 hearing. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 521; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. 5 Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070 (D. Ariz. 2006). 6 Upon entry of default, the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint, except those relating 7 to damages, are deemed admitted. E.g., Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 8 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). 9 Where the amount of damages claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical 10 calculation, the court may enter a default judgment without a hearing. Davis v. Fendler, 650 11 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981). When it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove unliquidated or 12 punitive damages, the court may require plaintiff to file declarations or affidavits providing 13 evidence for damages in lieu of a full evidentiary hearing. Transportes Aereos De Angola v. Jet 14 Traders Invest. Corp., 624 F. Supp. 264, 266 (D. Del. 1985). 15 Entry of default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion. See Taylor Made Golf Co. 16 v. Carsten Sports, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 658, 660 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (Brewster, J.) (citing Lau Ah Yew 17 v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1956)). In making this determination, the court considers 18 the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's 19 substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the 20 action, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was 21 due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 23 1986). 24 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 A. 27 This in rem civil forfeiture action is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Verified Claim and Answer 28 Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. See United States v. Approximately $1.67 12cv543 4 1 Million, 513 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). In rem jurisdiction is obtained “by arrest under 2 process of the court.” United States v. 2,164 Watches, More or Less, Bearing a Registered 3 Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 771 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks 4 omitted). 5 Under Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules, “[a] person who asserts an interest in the 6 defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is 7 pending.” The claim must: (A) identify the specific property claimed; (B) identify the claimant 8 and state the claimant’s interest in the property; (C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of 9 perjury; and (D) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or 10 (b)(ii)(D). Rule G(5)(b) also provides that “[a] claimant must serve and file an answer to the 11 complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within 21 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives 12 any objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by motion or stated 13 in the answer.” 14 The Government served Notice of Forfeiture on all known potential claimants on March 15 6, 2012. And on May 24, 2012, the Government sent a Notice of Judicial Forfeiture Proceedings 16 and a copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture by certified mail to Ms. Robbins at a new address. 17 Since the time of notice, Ms. Robbins has communicated with the Government, but no claim or 18 answer has been filed by Ms. Robbins regarding the defendant property. Therefore, with the 19 expiration of the 21-day filing period, Ms. Robbins has waived any objection to in rem 20 jurisdiction or to venue. 21 22 B. 23 Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the burden of proof for the civil The Government Establishes Its Case by a Preponderance of the Evidence. 24 forfeiture of any property is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 25 that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c). Furthermore, “the Government 26 may use evidence gathered after the filing of the complaint for forfeiture to establish, by 27 preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture,” and “if the 28 Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the 12cv543 5 1 commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the 2 Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the 3 offense.” Id. 4 In this case, the Government’s evidence is not disputed by any claimant, including Ms. 5 Robbins. Moreover, upon entry of default, the factual allegations in the Government’s verified 6 complaint are deemed admitted. Therefore, assuming the allegations in the complaint as true, 7 the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant property was 8 involved in a transaction or attempted transaction, or was property traceable to property involved 9 in violation in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and in particular, under 21 U.S.C. § 881. 10 Furthermore, based on the allegations in the complaint, the Government has both proven its case 11 by a preponderance of the evidence and established the requisite nexus between the defendant 12 property and the offense. 13 14 IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 15 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 16 (Doc. 16.) Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the interests of Mamie Lee Robbins be 17 condemned and forfeited to the United States of America. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 DATED: March 27, 2013 21 22 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge 23 HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 25 26 27 28 12cv543 6

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.