Opinion
No. 12-CV-3973
03-05-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $49,000 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant. JOSEPH MARASCO, Claimant.
MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney PATRICIA J. KENNEY Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States LAW OFFICES OF HANLON AND RIEF SARA RIFF Attorneys for Claimant Joseph Marasco JEFF WOZANIAK Attorney for Claimant Joseph Marasco
MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA B. KANE (CSBN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
PATRICIA J. KENNEY (CSBN 130238)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: 415.436.6857
Facsimile: 415.436.6748
Attorneys for the United States of America
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT; REQUEST TO
TAKE THE MARCH 14, 2013
CMC OFF CALENDAR; AND
ORDER TO RESCHEDULE
THE CMC ON JUNE 13, 2013
Date: March 14, 2013
Place: Courtroom B, 15th Floor
Pursuant to the Court's standing order, the parties submit the following joint case management statement and request to take the March 14, 2013 CMC off calendar and to reschedule it in three months, on June 13, 2013:
1. Jurisdiction and Service
This is a judicial forfeiture action. The Court has jurisdiction over defendant $49,000 under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
The United States provided general notice of this action by publication and direct notice to Joseph Marasco and his counsel, Sara Rief, as required by Supplemental Rule G(4). See Supp. R. for Admir. or Maritime Claims and Asset Forf. Actions G(4); Certificate of Service, served August 2, 2012; Declaration of Publication, filed August 31, 2012. Joseph Marasco filed a timely claim and answer. See Defendant's [sic] Claim of Interest in Approximately $49,000 in United States Currency, filed August 28, 2012; Answer of Claimant to Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, etc., filed September 17, 2012.
2. Facts
The United States set forth facts in its verified complaint involving the traffic stop of the vehicle in which claimant was a passenger and which it contends set forth probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances that defendant $49,000 is subject to forfeiture.
Claimant Marasco claims that defendant $49,000 is his personal savings and not subject to forfeiture. See Answer, supra.
3. Legal Issues
a. Whether claimant Marasco has standing to assert a claim of ownership.
b. Whether the United States can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant $49,000 is subject to forfeiture because it is connected to illegal drug trafficking activities.
c. If the United States establishes that defendant $49,000 is subject to forfeiture, whether claimant Marasco can establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the affirmative defenses asserted in the answer to the complaint.
4. Motions
No motions are pending. After the close of discovery, the United States will likely file a motion for summary judgment that defendant $49,000 is subject to forfeiture based on a totality of the circumstances.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
The parties have no current plans to amend the pleadings.
6. Evidence Preservation
The United States will preserve all documents, information or other evidence that it has been provided in connection with this adopted case. Claimant will preserve all documents, information or other evidence which he has in connection with this adopted case.
7. Disclosures
No initial disclosures are required in civil forfeiture actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(ii).
8. Discovery
The United States has propounded Special Interrogatories pursuant to Rule G(6) which explore the relationship of claimant to defendant $49,000. Supp. R. for Admir. or Maritime Claims and Asset Forf. Actions G(6). Although claimant has responded, the parties are discussing whether claimant needs to supplement. The United States has also propounded a First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents as well as a Request for Admissions to which claimant must respond at the end of March. In addition, after receiving written responses, the United States plans to take the depositions of claimant and his witnesses, including his father and brother.
Claimant Marasco has propounded document requests, and may also propound interrogatories and requests for admissions. The United States has to respond to the document requests at the end of March. Claimant plans to take the deposition of officers involved in this matter.
9. Class Actions
Not Applicable.
10. Related Cases
The parties are unaware of any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or before another court, or administrative body.
11. Relief
The United States seeks to forfeit defendant $49,000. Claimant Marasco seeks the return of defendant $49,000.
12. Settlement and ADR
This is a civil law enforcement action. Although the United States has set forth evidence on which it concludes that defendant $49,000 is subject to forfeiture, the United States has not had the opportunity yet to discover the basis of claimant's claim that defendant $49,000 is not subject to forfeiture. Thus, ADR at this juncture is premature.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for all Purposes
By signing this Joint Case Management Statement previously filed, the parties consented to having this case handled by a Magistrate Judge with a direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
14. Other References
Claimant Marasco properly demanded a jury trial in his Answer.
15. Narrowing of Issues
It is premature to determine whether issues can be narrowed by agreement or motion before the parties engage in discovery.
16. Expedited Trial Procedure
Not applicable.
17. Scheduling
The parties suggest that the Court schedule a case management conference in three months, after the parties have had the opportunity to obtain responses to the pending discovery requests.
18. Trial
The parties agree that this matter does not appear to be complex and estimate that, if it ever reaches trial, the case will take no longer than 5 trial days. Claimant has has demanded a jury trial.
19. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons
The United States is exempt from the requirement in Civil Local Rule 3-16 to file a "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons." Claimant Marasco agrees to file the required Certification in the next 30 days.
20. Other Matters
The parties believe the case is progressing apace and that a case management conference on March 14, 2013 is unnecessary. If the Court agrees, the parties request the Court to take the March 14, 2013 CMC off calendar and reschedule it for June 13,2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. IT IS SO STIPULATED:
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
______________
PATRICIA J. KENNEY
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for the United States
LAW OFFICES OF HANLON AND RIEF
______________
SARA RIFF
Attorneys for Claimant Joseph Marasco
______________
JEFF WOZANIAK
Attorney for Claimant Joseph Marasco
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS BY THE COURT ON THIS 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2013, ORDERED THAT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS RESCHEDULED FOR JUNE 13, 2013.
______________
HONORABLE MARIE-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge