United States v. Chevrolet Tahoe 1999, VIN 1GNEK13R7XJ487970, 4:11-cv-00640

The United States filed a civil forfeiture action in Oct. 2011 seeking forfeiture of a 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe for alleged unlawful transportation of an alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A).
The vehicle is currently in custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection within the court's jurisdiction.
Notice was provided to Brian Edmiston, who may have an interest, and the action was posted on forfeiture.gov; Edmiston filed no claim.
The Clerk entered Edmiston's default under Rule 55(a) for failure to respond or claim an interest.
The government moved for default judgment against Edmiston and any other potential claimants; no response was filed and the time to respond expired.
The court applied the Eitel v. McCool factors and granted default judgment, ordering forfeiture of the Tahoe to the United States and dismissal of the action; the certificate of reasonable cause request was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment is warranted under the Eitel factors.	Government argues factors favor default and forfeiture given lack of response.	Edmiston did not respond; no contrary factual dispute raised.	Yes; factors support default judgment and forfeiture.
Whether the Tahoe should be forfeited given no claimant appeared.	Forfeiture appropriate under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b).	Edmiston did not claim an interest.	Forfeit to the United States.
Whether the certificate of reasonable cause should be issued.	Request made but not argued on its merits.	No response to address the request.	Denied.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard on motion for default judgment; balancing factors)
Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (court may accept allegations as true except for damages when default entered)
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (fact-specific factors governing entry of default judgment)